At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.
Read the papers. You are missing the q factors, relativity etc. work thru the math in the paper then make a post. I did it and even though I'm not entirely convinced I am thinking that it is a possibility- especially given that the effect has been independently confirmed.At an input power of 2.5kW, their 2.45GHz EmDrive thruster provides 720mN of thrust.
A photon has energy E = hf and momentum p = hf / c = E / c
F = dp/dt = dE/dt / c
So even if all the energy was converted into photons all emited in the desired direction, that would make a force:
F = 2.5e3/3e8 = 8e-6 N
That's 90 000 times less than 720 mN.
Where am I wrong?
Brady, David (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
White, Harold G. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
March, Paul (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Lawrence, James T. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States);
Davies, Frank J. (NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States)
New paper describing encouraging results from the testing of an 'EM-drive' like device.Yep.. free energy. Forget the heat death of the universe, we will just keep creating additional mass locally.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052)
Hope it stands up to further scrutiny. Could be a real game changer!
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
i think they are part of a broad classification of propulsion, etc labelled Space drives? maybe that is why?Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
Not sure this is related to the emdrive, think this is that Q thruster concept.
regardless, the abstract makes it sound more negative than positive.
"..Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)."
Like the placebo in a drug trial showing the same "effect".
From my limited understanding of the topic I wasn't sure why these two were linked together in the Wired article, are they really that closely related?
Well it's appeared again.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
This is the main link.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Anyone notice Harold 'warp drive' White is one of the authors on this?
Manual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both testThis looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce
thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
Can you explain more about the power supply being in a different reference frame?QuoteManual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both testThis looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce
thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
http://vimeo.com/29837879
Well it's appeared again.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
This is the main link.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Anyone notice Harold 'warp drive' White is one of the authors on this?
It is at rest compared to the test device.Exactly, it is NOT being accelerated with the thruster.
I wouldn't dream of posting here....I can understand the skepticism...
I know very little about this, but it doesn't seem to claim free energy. Sonny describes the "q thruster" as being essentially like a water propeller, except pushing against vacuum virtual particles.... which sounds plausible... to these foolish ears. It's definitely disconcerting that even their null device produced "thrust" though.The end result for these propellantless propulsion devices is free energy, though.
If the PSU experiences an equal but opposite thrust while bolted down to the desk, then no one would notice, but it would invalidate it as a thruster.Can you explain more about the power supply being in a different reference frame?QuoteManual frequency control was required throughout the test. Thrust was observed on both testThis looks like an issue to me that indicates a problem with their setup. Also, if I interpret their video on vimeo correctly, then their test setup has the problem that their power supply is in a different reference frame. From what I remember from previous discussions on the topic, that may distort the results:
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce
thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article).
http://vimeo.com/29837879
Surely it is not. It is at rest compared to the test device.
Is NASA the only one who can test things? Surely this is a matter for major laboratories and university research teams to take a look at - even if only to issue a definitive disproof.
Is NASA the only one who can test things? Surely this is a matter for major laboratories and university research teams to take a look at - even if only to issue a definitive disproof.
I assume because the scientific establishment don't want to know for whatever reason, which too me knowing the history of how things can come from left field is perhaps not so good? From a theoretical viewpoint it would be quite interesting if there did turn out to be something in it because by the looks of it would require some re-thinking of certain areas of theory.
Is NASA the only one who can test things? Surely this is a matter for major laboratories and university research teams to take a look at - even if only to issue a definitive disproof.
I assume because the scientific establishment don't want to know for whatever reason, which too me knowing the history of how things can come from left field is perhaps not so good? From a theoretical viewpoint it would be quite interesting if there did turn out to be something in it because by the looks of it would require some re-thinking of certain areas of theory.
Right, the "scientific establishment" don't want to know. Because we all know the "scientific establishment" is a hive mind that makes collective decisions. It's definitely not hundreds of thousands of individuals who have a love of knowledge and desire to find out about the world we live in. It can't possibly be that those hundreds of thousands of individuals in dozens of countries are free to do whatever research they want to.
And it's just not possible that reputable scientists aren't spending their time on this because they honestly believe that it would be a waste of their time, and that they have the education, experience, and intelligence to tell science from pseudo-science.
Is NASA the only one who can test things? Surely this is a matter for major laboratories and university research teams to take a look at - even if only to issue a definitive disproof.
I assume because the scientific establishment don't want to know for whatever reason, which too me knowing the history of how things can come from left field is perhaps not so good? From a theoretical viewpoint it would be quite interesting if there did turn out to be something in it because by the looks of it would require some re-thinking of certain areas of theory.
Right, the "scientific establishment" don't want to know. Because we all know the "scientific establishment" is a hive mind that makes collective decisions. It's definitely not hundreds of thousands of individuals who have a love of knowledge and desire to find out about the world we live in. It can't possibly be that those hundreds of thousands of individuals in dozens of countries are free to do whatever research they want to.
And it's just not possible that reputable scientists aren't spending their time on this because they honestly believe that it would be a waste of their time, and that they have the education, experience, and intelligence to tell science from pseudo-science.
Yeah the same scientific establishment that spent so long saying oh no there is nothing like plate tectonics, the Big Bang or lead in fuel actually causing health effects. I bet you could come up with plenty of examples usually ending with whoops we were wrong & in fact the mavericks were right.
Well now have three separate teams all reporting positive results with two different devices, to me it seem like there something here that need further exploration.
Every generation has thought to themselves that the previous generation is a bunch of stick-in-the-muds who should have a more open mind, waxing philosophical about what might be, and then failed to produce anything new until they adopted a skeptical mindset.. thus becoming the next generation of stick-in-the-muds.
We're not skeptical because we think we know it all.. we're skeptical because it works.
Well now have three separate teams all reporting positive results with two different devices, to me it seem like there something here that need further exploration.
Well now have three separate teams all reporting positive results with two different devices, to me it seem like there something here that need further exploration.
The EmDrive has nothing to do with Sonny White's device, so it makes no sense to lump them together.
And in one of the tests both the test device and the control device showed thrust, indicating the measured effect was a result of error in the test setup, not success by the device.
So, not a lot of indication of anything interesting going on.
Since this was done in air, could it be this effect, which is real but unremarkable?
http://youtu.be/2uD9wtq29h8
Don't the vacuum fluctuations only exist for 10^-44 s each (the Planck time)? How can you possibly transfer enough momentum to anything in 10^-44 s?
New paper describing encouraging results from the testing of an 'EM-drive' like device.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052)
Hope it stands up to further scrutiny. Could be a real game changer!
Yes. I did a search before I created a new topic but somehow missed the EM drive thread. Doh!New paper describing encouraging results from the testing of an 'EM-drive' like device.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052)
Hope it stands up to further scrutiny. Could be a real game changer!
Hello we've now got two threads on this.
I used this existing thread from last year?
Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)
QuoteThrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)
Since one experiment that should NOT have detected thrust did detect thrust, that calls into question whether there was a mistake in the test setup. Since the test chamber was not at a vacuum, I'd call that a very likely source for error. A more promising possibility is it detects thrust in configurations they didn't expect, but the simpler explanation is the former.
The end result for these propellantless propulsion devices is free energy, though.
This is the most lucid article I've read on this and at least it doesn't muddle the two up and it contains some additional comment. Half the problem with this story seems to be the muddled reporting of it.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/fuel-less-space-drive-may-actually-work-says-nasa?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=5&con=fuelless-space-drive-may-actually-work-says-nasa
It clearly states the device tested was not White's device but it was similar.
It also states they are looking for the results to be peer reviewed.
It's a thread. the server DB will not self destruct or lag because of it. :) besides normally Forum moderators have authorization to merge threads if it really bugs anyone. i dunno if that is delegated to them here or if it's admin level. it would put extra work on the admins if it hasn't been delegated to moderators though.
Yes. I did a search before I created a new topic but somehow missed the EM drive thread. Doh!
Not sure what to do about it now... Apologies.
Reading the abstract, Crix seems to be on the right track about quantum mechanics, but I don't know enough to speculate from there what would be happening:QuoteTest results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.
However, it appears to me that there is a problem being ignored by the media that are reporting on this:QuoteThrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)
Since one experiment that should NOT have detected thrust did detect thrust, that calls into question whether there was a mistake in the test setup. Since the test chamber was not at a vacuum, I'd call that a very likely source for error. A more promising possibility is it detects thrust in configurations they didn't expect, but the simpler explanation is the former.
If the null device also produced measurable thrust, then the effect is an artifact, to high confidence. This is the reason for having a null sample. It helps makes sure you're not fooling yourself.
The nasa link is to an abstract only- it says abstract only available. One presumes the rest of the paper will be available after peer review.
Glad to see this has been investigated.
em-drives, ion engines, VASIMIR, Alcubrier... seem's we have a bazillion ways to go fast on very little fuel once we are up there... But we still have to deal with the rocket equation to get there in the first place. I'm waiting to see a /real/ game-changer come along... a provable means of getting out of the gravity well that beats rockets.
Sadly, we are rather lacking in acceptable options there still.
em-drives, ion engines, VASIMIR, Alcubrier... seem's we have a bazillion ways to go fast on very little fuel once we are up there... But we still have to deal with the rocket equation to get there in the first place. I'm waiting to see a /real/ game-changer come along... a provable means of getting out of the gravity well that beats rockets.
Sadly, we are rather lacking in acceptable options there still.
I think even if the EM thruster actually worked as advertised that it's my understanding you would still need a jet engine for an aircraft or rocket for a spacecraft to get off the ground in the first place.
I know very little about this, but it doesn't seem to claim free energy. Sonny describes the "q thruster" as being essentially like a water propeller, except pushing against vacuum virtual particles.... which sounds plausible... to these foolish ears. It's definitely disconcerting that even their null device produced "thrust" though.The end result for these propellantless propulsion devices is free energy, though.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
*If* the effect is real I would speculate (as I have done before in other threads) that the kinetic energy your device gains during operation is always less than the energy input into the device.This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
The energy may in fact come from somewhere else. That is fine. What I just do not understand is proponents not admitting to themselves how fundamental a gift this would be.
Alternatively, perhaps this effect is somehow tied to a local reference frame, like pushing against water or solar wind. This would make it far less effective but still would be a vast improvement over the rocket equation. I dont know what would define that frame since I haven't seen any claim that this is the case.
Not investigating these simple aspects with awesome consequences is like not taking your own claim seriously. Similarly with anyone proposing FTL without investigating how the paradoxes would be resolved. If you cannot describe these cases then you cannot describe what you are claiming to have produced.
That said, the paper linked clearly says the device constructed to not get results got results anyway, so QED the resonant cavity theory is falsified by this experiment...
So not sure why anyone's excited...
The first line in the abstract of the technical report is "This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."Thats fine, so long as it is understood that if this experiment behaves the same regardless of inertial frame (usually considered a positive for a theory) then it will provide free energy.
Who knows if this will work, but it is not some magic inertial-less drive that can lead to free energy or perpetual motion. It is an attempt to interact with virtual particles like an electromagnet would interact with an electric field.
Fair comment.
I guess we will have to just see what turns up if they continue to refine the experiments.
Maybe a slim chance of a real, usable effect, but the payoff would be so enormous that it must be worth a fair bit of time, money and effort to either put this to bed for good or confirm it to a high degree of confidence.
The first line in the abstract of the technical report is "This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."Thats fine, so long as it is understood that if this experiment behaves the same regardless of inertial frame (usually considered a positive for a theory) then it will provide free energy.
Who knows if this will work, but it is not some magic inertial-less drive that can lead to free energy or perpetual motion. It is an attempt to interact with virtual particles like an electromagnet would interact with an electric field.
Hey! come to think of it, that air example I made above implies we could also get energy for free from the CMB case. In that case it would merely be the good old energy we used to exploit all the time in sailing ships, where you have water and wind moving with different average velocities. We could exploit the difference between the CMB frame and the interstellar medium (say with a minimagnetosphere) or more immediately we could produce energy from a slight drag on the CMB frame, gradually bringing the speed of the planet (and through the slight force of gravity, our sun) to rest WRT to the CMB. The mass of the sun and 400km/s is a massive store of energy.
You could use this device to harvest energy from the Universe one way or anoter. But anyway, in my opinion it's at least as bad to violate conservation of momentum.
It's not a scientific strawman. It's a valid criticism. Propellantless thrust already requires new physics. Also, all of the excitement over applications basically assume that what KelvinZero is saying is true.
It's not a scientific strawman. It's a valid criticism. Propellantless thrust already requires new physics. Also, all of the excitement over applications basically assume that what KelvinZero is saying is true.
em-drives, ion engines, VASIMIR, Alcubrier... seem's we have a bazillion ways to go fast on very little fuel once we are up there... But we still have to deal with the rocket equation to get there in the first place. I'm waiting to see a /real/ game-changer come along... a provable means of getting out of the gravity well that beats rockets.
Sadly, we are rather lacking in acceptable options there still.
I think even if the EM thruster actually worked as advertised that it's my understanding you would still need a jet engine for an aircraft or rocket for a spacecraft to get off the ground in the first place.
I step into this debate with trepidation. My perspective is that neither proponent has developed a successful characterisation of any effect, hence the confusion over the test article modified to not perform, and the confusion over Shawyer's description leading to his theory gaining little traction. However- having exercised my doubts, and well aware of the problems inherent in using an analogy, one presents itself to me in this case. A rocket motor utilises the shape of the nozzle to convert chemical energy to a directed force, which we call thrust. Is it possible that all that happening here is microwave energy is converted to thrust by the shape of the chamber?We are a friendly bunch here SteveKelsey, never be afraid to put your oar in! :)
It's a horribly inefficient conversion that may be due to the net sum of all the forces applied of the chamber. It is most likely more complex and as I am not clear on Shawyer's use of relativity as part of his description of the system I am ignoring that, but from what I have read I am in good company. Just an idle thought on a rainy saturday evening in Cumbria so if you think it doesn't hold water let it pass : )
Hello all,Welcome to the forum!
I think there is one elephant in the room that nobody seems to notice. If the drive is supposed to gain impulse by interaction with virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, then these particles obviously have to be accelerated in the opposed direction in which the drive is accelerated.
Here comes now the elephant: When those accelerated virtual particles (which pop in an out of existence spontaneously) disappear again to who-knows-where, what happens to the impulse that these particles previously gained.. is it gone? I can hardly imagine that this should be the case. So.. where would the imparted impulse on the virtual particles go? Ideas? On the other hand.. please correct me if I'm wrong.. I seem to remember some knowledge that virtual particles were not subject to impulse conservation?
Regards
The Wright brothers,
Were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are credited with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903
Prior to that, It could be said that, "Heaver than air was consider impossible".
Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.
Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.
What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?
Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
;)
I'm not talking about EM acceleration, hence my choice of the neutron to make things clear.Consider a neutron in free space. It is surrounded by a malestrom of pair-production events all around it. It is perturbed on the Planck scale by all these events, but as in Brownian motion they average out to nearly zero.
Remember we are talking Planck scale perturbations here. I.e: un-observable.
What if you could bias the pair-production events somehow so that there was a preferred vector of momentum?
Would we see our neutron being accelerated in a particular direction?
;)
Since neutrons can't be accelerated by electromagnetism AFAIK, this effect would sound similar to what gravity would be able to do. I mean, gravity is a gradient in space, right?
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.We see this everyday.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...
Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.We see this everyday.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)
In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'
Sigh.
Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff.
/rant over
Slightly odd article from the Verge on this. What I mean is they seem to be sceptical about this because of Guido Fetta's qualifications, which is a bit harsh.We see this everyday.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5959637/nasa-cannae-drive-tests-have-promising-results
People who criticize CAGW are hacked down because the are not in the 'Climate Science Club' and don't have qualifications in 'Climate Science' (sic)
In this case 'He can't possibly know what he is talking about, he only knows about chemistry!'
Sigh.
Maybe the tech doesn't work, but I would fight and fight for the ability of people to try and fail at this sort of stuff.
/rant over
Nobody I've ever heard of has argued that anybody shouldn't have the right to try whatever they want, with their own resources, and the resources of anyone wishing to spend them that way.
However, resources are limited, and it's perfectly legitimate to argue about whether a particular line of research is worth putting the resources into, and to try to convince others not to put their own resources into a particular line of research.
There are tens of thousands of grad students struggling to find research dollars to continue their research into all sorts of topics in physics and aerospace engineering.
I personally find it sad that a very small number of fringe people who make outlandish claims get so much attention -- attention that, to my mind, would be better focused on more mainstream science and engineering, which is, I believe, far more likely to get us eventually to the breakthroughs we all would like to see.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind. Deciding to try to design a device that violates limitations of known physics gets it backwards -- it's the approach of amateurs.
I like this idea. What we are seeing is a macro-Casimir effect. Maybe like we see macro superconductivity from quantam Cooper-pairings?Yes. I suppose that is exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds crazy when you put it like that! I'm just putting forward ways the anomalous thrust could be explained *if* it is real...
OK, here's an idea. The resonant cavity's purpose is to produce standing waves, right? So, basically it's a precise arrangement of conducting plates which reflect EM waves back and forth. For some reason, this reminds me of a "macro" Casimir cavity, just on a different scale and with "real" photons. So, what if.. this EM drive acted (by coincidence) as some weird form of "macro" Casimir cavity and its specific shape (accidentally) produced a preferred vector, working with real photons? I seem to remember that specific geometries of Casimir cavities were calculated to be able to produce a preferred vector of motion. I didn't find that piece of info yet again, or perhaps I remember wrongly. Maybe someone else knows better?
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.
This is one little corner of NASA. NASA is a huge organization with lots and lots of people working on lots of things. Sonny White and friends are not equivalent to NASA as a whole.
And there's nothing wrong with complaining that this one small part of NASA is wasting precious resources that could be better spent, and misleading the public by letting the NASA name get attached to wishful thinking in the guise of science.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.
Real advances in science come from careful experimentation and analysis, the discovery of anomalous results, and the advancement of theories to explain those results, without any particular engineering goal in mind.Which is exactly what the authors are trying to do.
That point seems to have escaped the OP.
They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.How do you look for a new law in physics?
Having a goal of making aStrikethru mine.reactionlessrocket drive and then looking for physics to make it work is backwards. That's not how discoveries in physics are made. They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.
Having a goal of making aStrikethru mine.reactionlessrocket drive and then looking for physics to make it work is backwards. That's not how discoveries in physics are made. They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.
Do you see how silly this sounds?
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
Wow that's a perfect way to debunk this. I was looking for something short and sweet like this.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
Wow that's a perfect way to debunk this. I was looking for something short and sweet like this.
This is even more exciting than the warp drive research, since if it pans out we could have practical applications almost immediately (i.e., within a couple of years). No more gravity assists would ever be necessary again.And free energy.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Classical physics lets you extract energy proportional to the velocity squared.
Wow that's a perfect way to debunk this. I was looking for something short and sweet like this.
yesh. you wouldn't want to try to find out where the unexpected energy comes from or something all scientific like. here is the issue with that. random debunking is bunkum. whatever the root cause of a phenomenon whether valid or not you just say it's swamp gas. it does not really explain what happened. it's every bit as much bunk as claiming it's Klaatu.
I have not seen 'free energy' mentioned for quite a few posts now.Yeah.. I was thinking it isn't really appropriate to keep explaining this repeatedly in specific versions propellantless thrust threads. It does sort of derail the thread, which should only concern it self with explaining how it works around this particular well known issue. But everyone should understand what the issue is.
..General explanation here...Everyone should understand the issue, and then threads like this can just focus on how this version claims to get around it.
I was mainly looking for a short description of a major issue with the experiment that I can feed to people to prompt them to engage their brains for a minute rather than shoveling the bull**** down their throats without thinking. After that some discussion can be sparked to realize the issues at hand.
The EmDrive and White's theories are the opposite -- they put the theory first and then go looking for evidence afterwards. In both cases, the theories claim to be consequences of existing theories in physics, but reputable physicists say that in fact they come from misunderstandings of current theories.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
(*) Propellantless propulsion lets you increase velocity proportional to the energy you put in.
How is this any different from an ion thruster?
If you do one burn to bring a satellite up to 10 m/s, and then another with the same energy that brings it to 20 m/s, you have the same phenomenon. In the second burn, you get more kinetic energy than in the first burn, even though your thruster expended the same amount of energy.
What this thesis ignores is that none of these theories extend how their devices would function as velocity increases.
I wouldn't dream of posting here....I can understand the skepticism...
However the experimenters are all NASA scientists.
What is the problem? are you a better scientist John F? Or do you think the authors should be stripped of their NASA posts?
Maybe we should calm down and investigate further?
Heavens!
This discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.
OK, here's an idea. The resonant cavity's purpose is to produce standing waves, right? So, basically it's a precise arrangement of conducting plates which reflect EM waves back and forth. For some reason, this reminds me of a "macro" Casimir cavity, just on a different scale and with "real" photons. So, what if.. this EM drive acted (by coincidence) as some weird form of "macro" Casimir cavity and its specific shape (accidentally) produced a preferred vector, working with real photons? I seem to remember that specific geometries of Casimir cavities were calculated to be able to produce a preferred vector of motion. I didn't find that piece of info yet again, or perhaps I remember wrongly. Maybe someone else knows better?I'd say it's doubtful. It's about the lifetime of the virtual particle before it cease to exist. AFAIK it's short, so they don't go very far before they disappear.
I was mainly looking for a short description of a major issue with the experiment that I can feed to people to prompt them to engage their brains for a minute rather than shoveling the bull**** down their throats without thinking. After that some discussion can be sparked to realize the issues at hand.
i think there are two major issues.
1. the signal is very small. this makes it easy for uncontrolled for unanticipated spurious signals to get in there. critic can claim this is what caused it all day long. it's hard to disprove.
2. in this experiment it appears the control test article got the same signal. I do not think this is as damning as it could be because of the signals found by other researchers with (similar devices of differing design details.) E.G. Dr Woodward's design is a solid state peizoelectric stack. he gets a thrust signal. Dr White has a capacitor and coil ring and gets thrust signals. the Egyptian girl uses a moving casimir mirror and gets a thrust signal. The Chinese use Shayer's design as a starting point and get a much stronger thrust signal than he did or NASA testing got.
They are made by not having any preconceived ideas about applications.How do you look for a new law in physics?
A friend shared this with me. It makes the point well.
and Visa versa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0&feature=player_embedded
The problem is that the article linked is not a scientific paper (http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science), but a clearly preliminary technical report, the typical "hat on the seat" (copyrighted by me :) ) paper required to ensure to be the first IF a sensational result is confirmed in order to get an high citation index in the future.A link to the actual paper may be found at
No, the NASA folks shot themselves in the foot with this unclear NTRS abstract, which is very misleading once you have read the complete paper, as birchoff and I did. Birchoff is right, the paper is only $25, and now it's very clear that even ArsTechnica only read the NTRS abstract and didn't download the complete paper before writing and publishing their biased article. Very poor journalism.
The fact is (and the NTRS abstract does not explain this): Eagleworks tested one tapered (frustum) cavity, aka Shawyer's EmDrive; and two Cannae drives which are also asymmetric but different resonant cavities. The Cannae drive is said to work on a purported different principle than the EmDrive, according to its inventor Guido Fetta (a net Lorentz force imbalance of electrons upon top vs bottom wall of the cavity). According to this purported working principle, one Cannae drive had radial slots on its rim as required by Fetta in order to produce net thrust, and the second Cannae drive didn't have those slits and was intended to be a "null test device". But the Cannae null test article… also produced net thrust (20 to 40 µN of net thrust depending of the forward or backward direction).
We're talking of net thrust because of course the setup was also tested with a null 50 ohm load connected, in order to cancel the effect from the drives and detect any detect any spurious force due to EM coupling with the whole apparatus (which exists, at 9.6 µN) and this "null" spurious force was evidently subtracted from any thrust signal due to the drives then tested on the pendulum.
So the fact that the Cannae null test article produced a net thrust doesn't imply the experiment was screwed up. It rather showed that the radial slits required by Guido Fetta for propulsion are not the reason for the thrust, and another theoretical explanation is needed. Absolutely no news on the websites, including wikipedia, actually reports correctly this information.
We can go further by pointing another underestimated yet important fact of those NASA experiments: all tests articles (the EmDrive version, the Cannae drive version, and even the Cannae "null test" version) had a dielectric embedded within. This is a hint for a different theoretical explanation involving EM fields, proper acceleration, mass fluctuation and dielectrics. Maybe Mach effects (due to Mach's principle), as supposed by Woodward and Fearn within the GR theory, or within a scalar-tensor theory of gravity according to Minotti. As for Sonny White, he talks about compressible quantum vacuum fluctuations, but there are flaws about this conjecture regarding the thrust magnitude observed.
This discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.
This would really make an interesting subject to read or a comparison point to read up on.
who you be able to supply a link or a paper?
It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
Looking at the very small amount of thrust generated I suspect measurement error or a problem with how the testing was set up.
Correct me if I have this wrong but 30 to 50 micro Newtons of thrust (.000030 to .000050 Newton) equates to about . .003 to .005 grams of thrust.
This tiny amount of force could easily be generated by air currents around what must be a warm to hot test article and could explain why the 'null' test article also produced thrust.
According to the NASA document http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 all testing was done in a vacuum chamber 'at ambient atmospheric pressure'.
I sure hope I'm wrong!!!
Charlie
Last year a Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it produced 720 mN (about 72 grams) of thrust, enough for a practical satellite thruster. Such a thruster could be powered by solar electricity, eliminating the need for the supply of propellant that occupies up to half the launch mass of many satellites. The Chinese work attracted little attention; it seems that nobody in the West believed in it.
It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
I don't understand why you think the quoted post would "clear up confusion", it looks like a hand wavy rationalization to me. To most scientists, a "null" that produces the predicted effect would be a strong hint to look for experimental error, not new physics.
It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
I don't understand why you think the quoted post would "clear up confusion", it looks like a hand wavy rationalization to me. To most scientists, a "null" that produces the predicted effect would be a strong hint to look for experimental error, not new physics.
My overall view is this is going to have wait for the further round of tests in the fall of this year, it looks like at this time there are just too many possible issues with this as it stands. It sounds like what they are planning next is either going to make or break this whole thing.
It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
I don't understand why you think the quoted post would "clear up confusion", it looks like a hand wavy rationalization to me. To most scientists, a "null" that produces the predicted effect would be a strong hint to look for experimental error, not new physics.
My overall view is this is going to have wait for the further round of tests in the fall of this year, it looks like at this time there are just too many possible issues with this as it stands. It sounds like what they are planning next is either going to make or break this whole thing.
Nothing will ever break it. The tests will fail to show convincing evidence of anomalous thrust, and the proponents of the various reactionless drives will come up with rationalizations for it and explain how they're working on new versions that will fix the problems. It will continue without end.
It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
I don't understand why you think the quoted post would "clear up confusion", it looks like a hand wavy rationalization to me. To most scientists, a "null" that produces the predicted effect would be a strong hint to look for experimental error, not new physics.
My overall view is this is going to have wait for the further round of tests in the fall of this year, it looks like at this time there are just too many possible issues with this as it stands. It sounds like what they are planning next is either going to make or break this whole thing.
Nothing will ever break it. The tests will fail to show convincing evidence of anomalous thrust, and the proponents of the various reactionless drives will come up with rationalizations for it and explain how they're working on new versions that will fix the problems. It will continue without end.
Why are there now two threads for this nonsense?I reported it to mods earlier, when it was only 5 posts long...
What is "it"? Yes it can be broken, with good enough experimental setup. That is what science is. If this thing (Cannae or whatever White used and/or renamed) is non-functional, and so simply non-functional, why doesn't someone else demonstrate that?It seems much confusion has arisen here. I have been reading on the Polywell forums that firstly the business with the Null article is not a concern, what you are seeing is an ill chosen abstract. Please see the quote below for more detail.If the experiments were actually done at atmospheric pressure none of that matters. It's clear from the paper that at least some of the tests were (see fig 22). That fact that it isn't clearly stated for each test is a major flaw in the paper regardless of the results, and strongly suggests the paper wasn't rigerously reviewed.
I don't understand why you think the quoted post would "clear up confusion", it looks like a hand wavy rationalization to me. To most scientists, a "null" that produces the predicted effect would be a strong hint to look for experimental error, not new physics.
My overall view is this is going to have wait for the further round of tests in the fall of this year, it looks like at this time there are just too many possible issues with this as it stands. It sounds like what they are planning next is either going to make or break this whole thing.
Nothing will ever break it. The tests will fail to show convincing evidence of anomalous thrust, and the proponents of the various reactionless drives will come up with rationalizations for it and explain how they're working on new versions that will fix the problems. It will continue without end.
Am not sure I understand the objection to power being provided from a source not physically connected to the device.The power is provided from a physically connected source, but the source is not accelerated with the device. This means that you are feeding a current from a static system into a moving frame of reference and that could appear as a thrust. And I might be wrong with this, but I am pretty sure that this could be a potential problem, especially when we are dealing with very small amounts of thrust here.
I understand that it would no longer be a closed system, but considering the scope of the mechanism of which these things are supposed to work then it is a moot point.
Why would it matter? Honest question.
Am not sure I understand the objection to power being provided from a source not physically connected to the device.
I understand that it would no longer be a closed system, but considering the scope of the mechanism of which these things are supposed to work then it is a moot point.
Why would it matter? Honest question.
Hello all,
I think there is one elephant in the room that nobody seems to notice. If the drive is supposed to gain impulse by interaction with virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, then these particles obviously have to be accelerated in the opposed direction in which the drive is accelerated.
Here comes now the elephant: When those accelerated virtual particles (which pop in an out of existence spontaneously) disappear again to who-knows-where, what happens to the impulse that these particles previously gained.. is it gone? I can hardly imagine that this should be the case. So.. where would the imparted impulse on the virtual particles go? Ideas? On the other hand.. please correct me if I'm wrong.. I seem to remember some knowledge that virtual particles were not subject to impulse conservation?
Regards
Am not sure I understand the objection to power being provided from a source not physically connected to the device.
I understand that it would no longer be a closed system, but considering the scope of the mechanism of which these things are supposed to work then it is a moot point.
Why would it matter? Honest question.
Don't know the exact setup but it's not trivial to exchange power from laboratory frame to device frame without exchanging momentum down to µN. The thrust of the device is measured as a displacement against a spring. With a torsion pendulum the device should be completely free to rotate about a vertical axis save for a very weak spring restoring force. The torsion wire(s) should be the only mechanical link(s) between lab frame and device frame. If you go current through them they are heating (changing stiffness). If you have other "soft" bent wires they will exert spurious forces. Also 10 cm of straight wire passing only 20mA of current will get about a µN of lateral thrust in the earth magnetic field alone. A curved wire will tend to straighten up a little bit from interaction with its own generated magnetic field. Going wireless would probably be worse as it's basically coupling electromagnets across the two frames. Even optical power transmission has some radiation pressure (not sure how much). All effects that go on when power on and off when power off (like the effect to be measured). I'm sure all that can be mitigated, but it's really far from trivial. Better have the power source on the suspended test bed (though not perfect as it can still electromagnetically interfere with lab/earth frame even in a vacuum)
Too important to be public. Military knows to release crappy results.
What do you think X34 is for?
I think they did the test with an RF load also.
They reported no force in this case. That must go someway to eliminating systemic errors in their setup.
Lol. Fair cop RanulfC!Too important to be public. Military knows to release crappy results.
What do you think X34 is for?
Sure you want to go with that example there? The X-34 never flew and so provided NO data. Just an FYI :)
Randy
Lol. Fair cop RanulfC!Too important to be public. Military knows to release crappy results.
What do you think X34 is for?
Sure you want to go with that example there? The X-34 never flew and so provided NO data. Just an FYI :)
Randy
I 'of course' meant to say the X-37
:-[
Welcome to the forum!
[sophomoric speculation] Perhaps the impulse goes to wherever the virtual particles came "from" when they pop out of existence again. Conservation of momentum only matters in a closed system right? [/sophomoric speculation]
They did? Going back over the abstract they mention the RF load, but nothing about testing of such.I think they did the test with an RF load also.
They reported no force in this case. That must go someway to eliminating systemic errors in their setup.
No, they reported there was some thrust detected from the RF load, also, but not as much, and they subtracted that from the measured thrust for the other two devices.
Am not sure I understand the objection to power being provided from a source not physically connected to the device.The power is provided from a physically connected source, but the source is not accelerated with the device. This means that you are feeding a current from a static system into a moving frame of reference and that could appear as a thrust. And I might be wrong with this, but I am pretty sure that this could be a potential problem, especially when we are dealing with very small amounts of thrust here.
I understand that it would no longer be a closed system, but considering the scope of the mechanism of which these things are supposed to work then it is a moot point.
Why would it matter? Honest question.
IANAS - But, I have read the report and it seems to me that they are only reporting on experimental results that they could not explain and honestly didn't expect to see. The first set of experiments and the "null" (they should have chosen a better word) device indicated results that were unexpected and invalidated 1 theory as to why results were seen. The so called "null" device was not really such a device. Rather, the engineer that made it had a theory that placing groves in one end of the device would create thrust and that not having the grooves would not create thrust. He was proven wrong in that the device appeared to create thrust irregardless of the groves.Great post.
The second set of experiments conducted with a different device of a type more closely related to the EMDrive also yielded results. They were able to take lessons learned about their first experimental setup and apply them to the second set of tests. As such they were able to test at much higher frequencies.
Among all of the tests, time available to test has been an issue. They stated in the opening brief about the setup of their vacuum chamber and pendulum that it takes "days" to pull an appropriate vacuum. Later in the paper they stated that one of the devices used had electrical components that were not vacuum friendly. I don't recall a specific mention of the second set of tests being performed in a vacuum.
The paper did not make any conclusions as to what is causing the effect that they are seeing. It does state that the effect is worth investigating and that they are planning to test a more powerful 1GHz version at other facilities with better equipment. I believe that at this time such an advanced concept lab as this is doing the right thing in further researching the results that they measured. I also believe that they are confident to a high enough degree to warrant larger scale testing at facilities that are better equipped for such tests.
I look forward to the results of such testing whether they be positive or negative.
They did? Going back over the abstract they mention the RF load, but nothing about testing of such.I think they did the test with an RF load also.
They reported no force in this case. That must go someway to eliminating systemic errors in their setup.
No, they reported there was some thrust detected from the RF load, also, but not as much, and they subtracted that from the measured thrust for the other two devices.
Did I just overlook it or do you have extra info?
IANAS - But, I have read the report and it seems to me that they are only reporting on experimental results that they could not explain and honestly didn't expect to see. The first set of experiments and the "null" (they should have chosen a better word) device indicated results that were unexpected and invalidated 1 theory as to why results were seen. The so called "null" device was not really such a device. Rather, the engineer that made it had a theory that placing groves in one end of the device would create thrust and that not having the grooves would not create thrust. He was proven wrong in that the device appeared to create thrust irregardless of the groves.Great post.
The second set of experiments conducted with a different device of a type more closely related to the EMDrive also yielded results. They were able to take lessons learned about their first experimental setup and apply them to the second set of tests. As such they were able to test at much higher frequencies.
Among all of the tests, time available to test has been an issue. They stated in the opening brief about the setup of their vacuum chamber and pendulum that it takes "days" to pull an appropriate vacuum. Later in the paper they stated that one of the devices used had electrical components that were not vacuum friendly. I don't recall a specific mention of the second set of tests being performed in a vacuum.
The paper did not make any conclusions as to what is causing the effect that they are seeing. It does state that the effect is worth investigating and that they are planning to test a more powerful 1GHz version at other facilities with better equipment. I believe that at this time such an advanced concept lab as this is doing the right thing in further researching the results that they measured. I also believe that they are confident to a high enough degree to warrant larger scale testing at facilities that are better equipped for such tests.
I look forward to the results of such testing whether they be positive or negative.
I may be slow today, but could you supply a link to the paper please?
Cheers mate.
The problem is that the article linked is not a scientific paper (http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science), but a clearly preliminary technical report, the typical "hat on the seat" (copyrighted by me :) ) paper required to ensure to be the first IF a sensational result is confirmed in order to get an high citation index in the future.A link to the actual paper may be found at
https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4
However this is a conference paper, which in many cases aren't peer reviewed in the same way a journal paper would be. I'm not sure about this particular case.
In any case, if Baez summery is correct, there is really nothing worth talking about here... (which should be no surprise to anyone who read the original abstract)
See below from about page 6 of this very thread. When you follow the link you will have to skip past about 2 or 3 paragraphs of the guy discounting the results to find two links to the actual paper:On the other hand, anyone interested in the plausibility (or otherwise) of this result may find reading the post and discussion in the comments to be time well spent.
They did? Going back over the abstract they mention the RF load, but nothing about testing of such.I think they did the test with an RF load also.
They reported no force in this case. That must go someway to eliminating systemic errors in their setup.
No, they reported there was some thrust detected from the RF load, also, but not as much, and they subtracted that from the measured thrust for the other two devices.
Did I just overlook it or do you have extra info?
QuoteWe're talking of net thrust because of course the setup was also tested with a null 50 ohm load connected, in order to cancel the effect from the drives and detect any detect any spurious force due to EM coupling with the whole apparatus (which exists, at 9.6 µN) and this "null" spurious force was evidently subtracted from any thrust signal due to the drives then tested on the pendulum.
I think in these things we have to be very careful.
There are two camps:-
1) People who would very much like it to be true.
2) People who say it is (obviously) impossible.
I would put myself in (1) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't except hard results disproving the effect.
Anyway, whichever camp you are in, it pays to be objective and not succumb to confirmation bias.
It can be difficult to do this, but we must try...
This discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.
This would really make an interesting subject to read or a comparison point to read up on.
who you be able to supply a link or a paper?
You might want to be rather careful in what you say here otherwise it might look like you're casting aspersions on the NASA scientists and their decision to investigate this.
This is one little corner of NASA. NASA is a huge organization with lots and lots of people working on lots of things. Sonny White and friends are not equivalent to NASA as a whole.
And there's nothing wrong with complaining that this one small part of NASA is wasting precious resources that could be better spent, and misleading the public by letting the NASA name get attached to wishful thinking in the guise of science.
If you want to see bizarre, go here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php (http://www.physforum.com/index.php)
But this is a hot blogger topic world wide, I checked a French and Czech blog site (Google Translate) and they seem to be very hard over on this subject, too. Most bloggers seem to behave as though they fear that the EM drive will steal their women and destroy their sex life.
Guys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.
Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great :)
In case it hasn't been posted, the full AIAA paper is available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum (http://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum)
A quick scan discovered the interesting item, that not two, but four devices were tested and reported. Three resulted in force being measured repeatably. Two devices were the disk shaped Cannae device, one of which was designed for null results but produced force anyway, one device was the Eagelworks in-house design, a conical shaped device similar the original Roger Shawyer and the chinese devices and the fourth device was a brick shaped RF load. It did not produce thrust.
So what we have is at least 5 devices which have been reported as producing thrust, and at least 3 different test set-ups that have been blamed as being faulty by the blogger community, each with a different fault. To me, it seems time to apply Occam's razor.
It is easy to show that the undetected flaw which the EagleWorks Lab is accused of, would not have gone undetected at the Chinese high power test. The suspected flaw is force resulting from heating and convective air flow. But in the Chinese high power test in order for this mechanism to give the measured force, the mass of air flow (mdot) times the change in air velocity (Ve) must equal the measured force. But that air flow would be easily detected by anyone who casually glanced at the operating device. So the flaw is different for different test set-ups.
So in the end, there can be either a different flaw for each test set-up, or there can be one unknown but reproducible force generating mechanism. What does Occam's razor say?
Of course flaws can be imagined and theories can be laughed at, but doing so does not advance scientific knowledge
The proper question to ask of Occam's razor whether it's more likely that three small groups made mistakes in their test setups that gave them the results they desperately wished to see, or that tens of thousands of physicists working over decades completely failed to find an effect that is easy to produce on a variety of different devices that are simple to make.
If there is a good reason to suspect an experimental flaw, pointing out that reason and spreading the idea about that flaw does absolutely advance scientific knowledge.
There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber. The geometry, location, and material properties of this resonator must be evaluated using numerous COMSOL® iterations to arrive at a viable thruster solution. We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.
This discovery came about because Shawyer was trying to explain the thrust generated by the microwave transmitters on satellites which exceeded what was expected and required additional fuel to correct.
This would really make an interesting subject to read or a comparison point to read up on.
who you be able to supply a link or a paper?
I have spent about 5 hours and have been unable to find it again. Google is worthless because any keywords I can think of only find hundreds of news articles about the recent NASA experiment. It was a mention in a forum, it wasn't an official paper. Perhaps someone with better google-fu can find it.
I step into this debate with trepidation. My perspective is that neither proponent has developed a successful characterisation of any effect...
Financial Sponsor: NASA Johnson Space Center; Houston, TX, United States
A rocket motor utilises the shape of the nozzle to convert chemical energy to a directed force, which we call thrust. Is it possible that all that happening here is microwave energy is converted to thrust by the shape of the chamber?
I suppose the question to ask next is, Has NASA finally invented a thruster that finally defies Betterridge's Law of Headlines?
Color me skeptical after Flesichmann-Ponns, OPERA...
Great if it was true (or terrifying considering the inevitable military applications) but I will wait a while this blows over and see if it sticks.
What military applications, I could see you could produce a very stealthy air vehicle through it but what else?As you say, stealth is one thing, the other is endurance. With solar cells, this thing could stay aloft for a long time, provided it really works as advertised...
Guys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.
Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great :)
Just speed-read that thread. Isn't GIThruster someone who was banned from NSF back-in-the-day before my time here? What was the score with him? (I can probably guess..)Guys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.
Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great :)
See link below.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5469
Make of what is posted in there what you will.
Just speed-read that thread. Isn't GIThruster someone who was banned from NSF back-in-the-day before my time here? What was the score with him? (I can probably guess..)Guys I applaud trying to stay on topic, but you're giving so little detail I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to that site shows some terrible "scientific" thoughts, is that what you mean.
Perhaps it needs a separate thread on "misunderstanding science" or whatever the concern is - otherwise an illustration of your concern would be great :)
See link below.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5469
Make of what is posted in there what you will.
I'm glad to be with sensible people who can discuss this properly here at NSF.
I really don't know about him/her. Maybe someone who has been here longer can elucidate?
I seem to remember a thread title being "....... (GIThruster, now banned.)....."
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The thread you linked was interesting but was more full of vitriol than science and reason. IMHO
Apologies to all if I missed stuff. I tend to speed-read things.I really don't know about him/her. Maybe someone who has been here longer can elucidate?
I seem to remember a thread title being "....... (GIThruster, now banned.)....."
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The thread you linked was interesting but was more full of vitriol than science and reason. IMHO
I didn't like the personal vitriol posted in it but felt the thread illustrated what I was talking about last night as regards some of the extreme responses to this particular topic.
What is the latest news on the EM drive/Cannae drive? I have found a website saying that NASA did not validate the test, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-validate-imposible-space-drive-word/#.U-KZq4BdUdg. I hope this is not true and that there will be more tests done proving this method of propulsion does work.
Yea. The latest news is that bloggers are still writing without reading. There is one blogger who has evidently read the full paper but I'll need to find the link again. Let me refer you to the full paper in the mean time.I read that. A good summary but not much else. (Unless I am missing something, entirely possible.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum (http://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum)
Looking at the paper it is easy to see why people might skim through it. It is 20 pages and dry reading, but it has several nuggets in it. The full paper explains many of the misunderstandings that come from reading the widely available abstract and leaves a much more positive impression. IMO
Here is the link to the article in Next Big Future that I alluded to.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/full-nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive-test.html (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/full-nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive-test.html)
For what it's worth I speed-read a lot of things and I'm good at it.
I am still going over the NASA paper properly.
So far I think that they have been very careful about outside influences.
Ion wind, heat based stuff not so much... I will continue pouring over it.
Yes, but that would be difficult and expensive! How about testing on the ISS with a Faraday cage (I'm sure you meant this!) and mu-metal components?For what it's worth I speed-read a lot of things and I'm good at it.
I am still going over the NASA paper properly.
So far I think that they have been very careful about outside influences.
Ion wind, heat based stuff not so much... I will continue pouring over it.
How about testing in hard vacuum with a Tesla cage around it?
For what it's worth I speed-read a lot of things and I'm good at it.
I am still going over the NASA paper properly.
So far I think that they have been very careful about outside influences.
Ion wind, heat based stuff not so much... I will continue pouring over it.
How about testing in hard vacuum with a Tesla cage around it?
Here is the link to the article in Next Big Future that I alluded to.Thanks for showing what you didn't like about the commentary. And this link!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/full-nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive-test.html (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/full-nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive-test.html)
You could have Ernst Mach himself argue the current state-of-the-art.
It wouldn't make any difference.
We just don't know.
well don't overlook another possibility. if these things work the final form might not be a single big device or set of big devices. the final form might be thousands (or millions) of tiny ones in some sort of array :) a drive on a chip.
Getting back to EM Drive, am I correct in thinking that the higher the frequency the more power consumed and the smaller the RF resonator?I like this. Do we need to wait until further confirmation to speculate on spacecraft configs?
I'm trying to guess how large a mature EM Drive might be physically? (Assuming that it does mature.) I'm pretty sure that the power sources would be a lot bigger than the EM Drive itself.
From what I've read it doesn't look like there is any reason to hang the drives off the tail end of the spaceship, rather just set them in the electronics bay, or maybe in the Captain's cabin. Of course they would need to be attached to a thrust structure. If you wanted redundancy you could just weld 20 or so of the 5% sized EM Drives on the stern of your spaceship.
I'm hoping that by the end of the year we can start speculating configurations in earnest.
For what it's worth I speed-read a lot of things and I'm good at it.
I am still going over the NASA paper properly.
So far I think that they have been very careful about outside influences.
Ion wind, heat based stuff not so much... I will continue pouring over it.
How about testing in hard vacuum with a Tesla cage around it?
You mean Faraday cage supposedly...
Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.
There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.
There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.
Doesn't matter. They worked for a long time before anyone figured out how. EM Drive, if verified to work, is in that stage before anyone has figured how.
I, for one, am glad if the NASA team's test results announcement has created a flutter. At least this will encourage more experts to get involved in coming up with either a definitive proof or disproof on this matter. At least one way or the other, the matter can then be settled.
It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there. Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work. That didn't do a thing to discourage its proponents.
There has actually been a paper on high-temp superconductors published recently, explaining how they work. It is supported by computer codes to simulate them as well. Sorry can't find the link at the mo.Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
It does make one very important point that is there is no agreed theory on how high temperature superconductors work but because they have been replicated so many times we know they do.
Doesn't matter. They worked for a long time before anyone figured out how. EM Drive, if verified to work, is in that stage before anyone has figured how.
They're not comparable because superconductivity never violated any fundamental laws of physics. The claims about the EmDrive violate fundamental laws of physics.
It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there. Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work. That didn't do a thing to discourage its proponents.
There's no such thing as "mainstream science".
There's stuff that works and stuff that doesn't. The EMDrive is firmly in the latter category. The day it makes it into the former will be called a "breakthrough".
Why did they experience the thrust in the opposite direction when they reversed the orientation of the device?
I present the following. No personal flames please.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6)
Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.
Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.
Do we know whether the author read the full report rather than the abstract that was initially released?
•The “test” performed at NASA was sensitive to a minimum thrust threshold of about 10-to-15 microNewtons, and the “positive result” claimed detection of somewhere between 30-to-50 microNewtons of thrust.
Maybe "these article writers" know bad science when they see it.
Do we know whether the author read the full report rather than the abstract that was initially released?
We don't know if he read the full report but we do know that he is quoting from the abstract because he says so.
He also reports the sensitivity of the measurement device to be an order of magnitude worse than all other claims I have seen.Quote•The “test” performed at NASA was sensitive to a minimum thrust threshold of about 10-to-15 microNewtons, and the “positive result” claimed detection of somewhere between 30-to-50 microNewtons of thrust.
I present the following. No personal flames please.The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6)
Fie! The high Priests of the great infernal entity known as Science have powers to discern anything heretical (in violation of the laws of physics) without even knowing what it's about or if it really does violate the laws of physics because anything weird has to violate the law; it just does . din'tcha know that? Infidel!I present the following. No personal flames please.The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6)
As it is I believe it needs such research, no?
(Edit: It would be bad science to not do it)
Fie! The high Priests of the great infernal entity known as Science have powers to discern anything heretical (in violation of the laws of physics) without even knowing what it's about or if it really does violate the laws of physics because anything weird has to violate the law; it just does . din'tcha know that? Infidel!I present the following. No personal flames please.The analogy drawn would infer that top scientists have tried to replicate the effect and failed. If that was true I'd side far more with the skeptics.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool-the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6)
As it is I believe it needs such research, no?
(Edit: It would be bad science to not do it)
i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?
oh there are plenty of threads about all of those things and countless ones discussing this or that chemical scheme. but the ones that break new ground get a lot of grief. while in my opinion there is no purely chemical scheme that should be classified as advanced. solar sails sure. even though there are a lot of issues that are not easy to fix. plasma sails; ok I'll buy it; but they are leaky. NTRs? sure; but do it already. damn it we have had the knowledge from the 1960s. do it already or shaddap. Fusion? ok. there are some things that may be as few as 5 years off there. This other (what they think of as woo woo or oogly moogly) stuff? low probability of success but huge payoff upon success for not much effort or money. worth discussing. worth low level funding at least. It's not like it hurts funding for other projects. NASA won't launch one less probe because they gave Dr White some modest resources. Not one Orion was hurt in the making of his coil thingy.i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?
Seems to me that everyone wants to talk about the stuff that has no hope of working and no-one ever wants to talk about the stuff that could be made to work with enough money. People used to love talking about solar sails, but now that one has flown (IKAROS) and two more are under development (Sunjammer and LightSail) suddenly no-one is interested anymore. Similarly, few people are terribly interested in talking about nuclear thermal rockets unless they're some impractical fusion contraption, but they were all the rage back in Heinlein's day. Reality has the nasty habit of boring the dreamers.
i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?
Seems to me that everyone wants to talk about the stuff that has no hope of working and no-one ever wants to talk about the stuff that could be made to work with enough money. People used to love talking about solar sails, but now that one has flown (IKAROS) and two more are under development (Sunjammer and LightSail) suddenly no-one is interested anymore. Similarly, few people are terribly interested in talking about nuclear thermal rockets unless they're some impractical fusion contraption, but they were all the rage back in Heinlein's day. Reality has the nasty habit of boring the dreamers.
i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; a likely near term advancement. i have seem them pan VASIMR and other advanced concepts that aren't that unlikely. i have even seen them argue about this or that chemical propulsion scheme being unrealistic or undesireable. so exactly what advanced concepts are non "woo woo?" to everyone's satisfaction? hamster flatulence? what?
Seems to me that everyone wants to talk about the stuff that has no hope of working and no-one ever wants to talk about the stuff that could be made to work with enough money. People used to love talking about solar sails, but now that one has flown (IKAROS) and two more are under development (Sunjammer and LightSail) suddenly no-one is interested anymore. Similarly, few people are terribly interested in talking about nuclear thermal rockets unless they're some impractical fusion contraption, but they were all the rage back in Heinlein's day. Reality has the nasty habit of boring the dreamers.
For the sake of argument, if the entire electrical input to the test apparatus had been converted into photons, then could the resulting photon rocket have generated comparable levels of force as what was observed?
For the sake of argument, if the entire electrical input to the test apparatus had been converted into photons, then could the resulting photon rocket have generated comparable levels of force as what was observed?
That is an excellent question. I think that the difference lies in the fact that in a photon rocket, each photon that imparts impulse to the rocket, only gets reflected exactly one time. In a superconducting high-Q resonant cavity, the photons get reflected e.g. a billion times until they get lost. So, my best guess is: No, the levels of force should not be comparable at all, since the photons can impart an impulse to a compact cavity many millions or even billions of times per second. Quite a hefty multiplier.
For the sake of argument, if the entire electrical input to the test apparatus had been converted into photons, then could the resulting photon rocket have generated comparable levels of force as what was observed?
That is an excellent question. I think that the difference lies in the fact that in a photon rocket, each photon that imparts impulse to the rocket, only gets reflected exactly one time. In a superconducting high-Q resonant cavity, the photons get reflected e.g. a billion times until they get lost. So, my best guess is: No, the levels of force should not be comparable at all.
For the sake of argument, if the entire electrical input to the test apparatus had been converted into photons, then could the resulting photon rocket have generated comparable levels of force as what was observed?
That is an excellent question. I think that the difference lies in the fact that in a photon rocket, each photon that imparts impulse to the rocket, only gets reflected exactly one time. In a superconducting high-Q resonant cavity, the photons get reflected e.g. a billion times until they get lost. So, my best guess is: No, the levels of force should not be comparable at all, since the photons can impart an impulse to a compact cavity many millions or even billions of times per second. Quite a hefty multiplier.
That's what I figured the response would be - but doesn't Conservation of Momentum apply to a resonant cavity, no matter how many times photons bounce back and forth inside it? If those were pingpong balls bouncing back-and-forth inside a cavity, we'd say there was no net momentum imparted to the apparatus from all their bouncing, because of Conservation of Momentum.
So if the force level observed is greater than what a photon rocket would hypothetically create, then doesn't that imply that there's more going on here than what traditional physics would suggest? (eg. Q-thruster, some interaction with Quantum Vacuum, etc)
i dunno if this EM thruster has been tested in vacuum or not but I know that Dr Woodward's version of this thing has been tested in vacuum.For the sake of argument, if the entire electrical input to the test apparatus had been converted into photons, then could the resulting photon rocket have generated comparable levels of force as what was observed?
That is an excellent question. I think that the difference lies in the fact that in a photon rocket, each photon that imparts impulse to the rocket, only gets reflected exactly one time. In a superconducting high-Q resonant cavity, the photons get reflected e.g. a billion times until they get lost. So, my best guess is: No, the levels of force should not be comparable at all.
No. I already did that calculation. The problem with that is the jet energy which would result. If the force, F = mdot * Ve were caused by photons moving at the speed of light, then mdot = 3.04E-13 kg/s and the jet energy, E= mdot * Ve^2/2 = .5*F*Ve . That gives E = 13,670.54 J/s or watts for a drive power of 17 watts. So conservation of energy is violated.
I have imagined a different failure mode. I hope i'ts wrong because I really want the EM thruster to be real, and I wonder how an outfit with "Aeronautics" in its name could make such a mistake, but consider this.
The EM thruster has never been tested in vacuum, and they all have been leaky, that is, total air pressure inside and outside is equal and equals atmospheric. Imagine then that some mechanism sets up an air circulation within the EM thruster. Circulating air moves with some velocity V across the inside of the large end of the thruster, recirculating around the open cavity past the small end. Air pressure outside the large end = Pt, total pressure but static air pressure inside the large end, Ps = Pt -q and q = 0.5* rho*V^2.
I ran the numbers assuming 140 mm diameter, uniform velocity and sea level air density. The force of air pressure equals the thrust force claimed when V = ~0.1 m/s. The actual number Excel calculated was 95.74677721 mm/s.
I hope you can gently shoot down this idea.
That's what I figured the response would be - but doesn't Conservation of Momentum apply to a resonant cavity, no matter how many times photons bounce back and forth inside it? If those were pingpong balls bouncing back-and-forth inside a cavity, we'd say there was no net momentum imparted to the apparatus from all their bouncing, because of Conservation of Momentum.The forces inside a resonant chamber should be balanced, except for the feed point. The transmission cable connecting the resonant chamber to the microwave generator is carrying momentum along with the energy. If there's a poor match between feed line and resonator, photons bouncing back and forth may carry momentum far in excess of a single transfer of the energy. This can be a problem for experimental integrity if the microwave generator is not on the force balance.
So if the force level observed is greater than what a photon rocket would hypothetically create, then doesn't that imply that there's more going on here than what traditional physics would suggest? (eg. Q-thruster, some interaction with Quantum Vacuum, etc)
The forces inside a resonant chamber should be balanced, except for the feed point. The transmission cable connecting the resonant chamber to the microwave generator is carrying momentum along with the energy. If there's a poor match between feed line and resonator, photons bouncing back and forth may carry momentum far in excess of a single transfer of the energy. This can be a problem for experimental integrity if the microwave generator is not on the force balance.The null test should have also had similar error?
Not if the dummy load presented a greatly different impedance than the active resonator.The forces inside a resonant chamber should be balanced, except for the feed point. The transmission cable connecting the resonant chamber to the microwave generator is carrying momentum along with the energy. If there's a poor match between feed line and resonator, photons bouncing back and forth may carry momentum far in excess of a single transfer of the energy. This can be a problem for experimental integrity if the microwave generator is not on the force balance.The null test should have also had similar error?
Not if the dummy load presented a greatly different impedance than the active resonator.Okay, at least I understand your thinking - that there was an error in measurement, and the control for it probably didn't work.
Reading around in various places there seems to be quite a bit of growing support for thinking the Mach effect is at work here and at the same time Dr White's explanation seems to be under be a good deal of scrutiny of close scrutiny.
Reading around in various places there seems to be quite a bit of growing support for thinking the Mach effect is at work here and at the same time Dr White's explanation seems to be under be a good deal of scrutiny of close scrutiny.
links to these discussions would be welcome :)
Can anyone shed some light on the Chinese research done a couple of years ago, finding a greater effect, and flaws in that?
I would literally cut my arm off if doing so would make these results valid. But chances are, it's just a false positive. From a Bayesian perspective, because conservation of momentum and energy are so well established (and ways to keep conservation with these results equally unlikely), even a positive, "statistically significant" result (p<0.05) WITHOUT systematic error would almost certainly still be a false positive, by an enormous margin.
Perhaps a different view is that on that forum there is a member loudly promoting his/her long held favorite theory. As he has been for a long time, loudly and often. He has won over a few converts.
I've no opinion about ME theory or the Woodward effect but I wouldn't promote it as "One size fits all." Neither would I say that there is no chance of it fitting as no one really knows.
well if the ME idea turns out to be valid there might be an Ansible in it for free. :)
of course accepting the ME idea there are several proposed mechanisms by which it could work. but if the ME is valid and it turns out to involve Freeman's advanced and retarded wave explanation then because inertia would be a result of communication with distal parts of the universe then you should be able to modulate an ME device output and send encoded information.
Another example of this type of possibility would be a never-before-observed directional coupling mechanism between the vacuum chamber and the feed lines... Some experiment failures are interesting in their own right.
Perhaps a different view is that on that forum there is a member loudly promoting his/her long held favorite theory. As he has been for a long time, loudly and often. He has won over a few converts.
I've no opinion about ME theory or the Woodward effect but I wouldn't promote it as "One size fits all." Neither would I say that there is no chance of it fitting as no one really knows.
Thanks that's probably not a bad way of putting it on second thoughts. I don't know this person's history but it certainly seems a rather dominant poster on there.
Perhaps a different view is that on that forum there is a member loudly promoting his/her long held favorite theory. As he has been for a long time, loudly and often. He has won over a few converts.
I've no opinion about ME theory or the Woodward effect but I wouldn't promote it as "One size fits all." Neither would I say that there is no chance of it fitting as no one really knows.
Thanks that's probably not a bad way of putting it on second thoughts. I don't know this person's history but it certainly seems a rather dominant poster on there.
he is not a dominant poster, and he fought with many forumers there. BUT we should not judge his ideas by his personality.
plenty of forumers there ARE on Woodwards emailing list.
Also bear in mind there is a long long Mach Effect thread on that forum, where Paul March (who works with Dr White) and is known here on NSF as Stardrive) had many posts and long discussions.
93143 can talk about the situation too, since he is also a long time poster at Talk Polywell and here at NSF.
well if the ME idea turns out to be valid there might be an Ansible in it for free. :)
of course accepting the ME idea there are several proposed mechanisms by which it could work. but if the ME is valid and it turns out to involve Freeman's advanced and retarded wave explanation then because inertia would be a result of communication with distal parts of the universe then you should be able to modulate an ME device output and send encoded information.
I am not sure that's a very good idea to send out info to who knows what & where.:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8642558.stm
well if the ME idea turns out to be valid there might be an Ansible in it for free. :)
of course accepting the ME idea there are several proposed mechanisms by which it could work. but if the ME is valid and it turns out to involve Freeman's advanced and retarded wave explanation then because inertia would be a result of communication with distal parts of the universe then you should be able to modulate an ME device output and send encoded information.
I am not sure that's a very good idea to send out info to who knows what & where.:)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8642558.stm
That Ansible would help explain the Fermi Paradox!
I have a general magnetism question that this thread has made pop into my mind. How can magnets attract or repel each other indefinitely without expending energy? If I put two ring magnets on a pole with the same pole facing each other, the magnet on the top will float above the magnet on the bottom, the repulsive force overcoming gravity, and the equilibrium distance between the two is determined by the field strength of the magnets. All that is well and good, but how does this happen without the repulsive (or attractive) effect fading over time and the magnets getting warm or otherwise emitting photons? In other words, the floating magnet is continually resisting an accelerative force due to gravity, so it (and the other magnet) has to expend energy to counter gravity for it to stay afloat. So where does that continual input energy come from? Even if it's at the nuclear level, there has to be an expenditure somewhere in order to negate gravitational acceleration.
Conceptually, it's the same as a book lying on a desk. Desk is exerting a force on the book to counteract gravity but no energy is expended. Energy is force times distance. If a force is exerted on an object but the object doesn't move, no energy need be expended.
Thanks for responding!
How can a force be exerted without expending energy? (serious question). If I hold my fat aunt above my head and she doesn't move, I'm still using energy to exert a force to counter gravity. Aren't atoms and particles doing the same? Inversely, can't I also expend energy to squeeze them together until the atoms can no longer resist fusing and then lots of their energy is released. Is the energy expended still zero until the whole thing collapses?
Regrettably coercivity dashes all hopes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity
It is a cruel universe
Regrettably coercivity dashes all hopes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity
It is a cruel universe
So coercivity seems to imply that there is a fixed amount of time that it will levitate the other magnet, and whatever is actually responsible for the levitation will dissipate as heat over time. Right? No magic involved, something is being spent.
The interaction between macroscopic objects can be roughly described as resulting from the electromagnetic interactions between protons and electrons of the atomic constituents of these objects. Everyday objects do not actually touch each other; rather, contact forces are the result of the interactions of the electrons at or near the surfaces of the objects (exchange force).
The effect of time on modern permanent magnets is minimal. .../... Over 100,000 hours, these losses are in the range of essentially zero for Samarium Cobalt materials...Also for a very very long functioning, some environmental radiation can wear the magnets :
SmCo exhibits significant demagnetization when irradiated with a proton beam of 10^9 to 10^10 rads. I guess cumulative radiations would also discharge the current loops in a superconductor...
it could if energy could be transferred to another frame of reference. No violation of laws, net thrust.
The CMB frame of reference is a physical entity.says some guy on the Internet?
It's like saying I'm going to work on extracting energy from the number 3.You could still extract energy from the work of trying, couldn't you ?
Says me, yes.The CMB is a certain reference frame (just like another reference frame), but why the crap should you be able to push against it or whatever you're talking about? There is no "ether."
Think about it carefully.
When you have, get back to me.
:)
If you pardon me the explanation of "energy equal force multiplied by distance and there is no distance involved", in my opinion of a layman is not enough to answer to "how a force can be exerted without expending energy". Actually it seems to me more a tautology than an explanation....Conceptually, it's the same as a book lying on a desk. Desk is exerting a force on the book to counteract gravity but no energy is expended. Energy is force times distance. If a force is exerted on an object but the object doesn't move, no energy need be expended.
Thanks for responding!
How can a force be exerted without expending energy? (serious question). If I hold my fat aunt above my head and she doesn't move, I'm still using energy to exert a force to counter gravity. ...
A solid "passive" object like a chair can hold a force on an object without expending any energy but it cant follow displacement in the direction of force, if aunty is an inch above chair then chair is no longer exerting force on aunty
Says me, yes.The CMB is a certain reference frame (just like another reference frame), but why the crap should you be able to push against it or whatever you're talking about? There is no "ether."
Think about it carefully.
When you have, get back to me.
:)
Energy density of CMB is ~1eV/cm-3, comparable to that of starlight in the Milky Way.http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A873/notes4.pdf (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A873/notes4.pdf)
frobnfiahdfh:
The virtual particles work the same in every reference frame. And you COULD "push" on them, if you wanted to expend the necessary energy to make them real particles, but that'd be no more efficient than a photon drive.
The CMB frame of reference is a physical entity.
If you pardon me the explanation of "energy equal force multiplied by distance and there is no distance involved", in my opinion of a layman is not enough to answer to "how a force can be exerted without expending energy". Actually it seems to me more a tautology than an explanation.
The CMB frame of reference is a physical entity.I'll make no bones about it.
Says me, yes.
Think about it carefully.
When you have, get back to me.
How can magnets attract or repel each other indefinitely without expending energy?
No movement - no impulse. I mean, it is IMHO comparable to a book standing on a table. No-one would imply that the book were to 'violate' impulse conservation in any way ;) . So, what's going on here?
I think one has to be careful when calling found physical principles 'laws'. They are not laws in the absolute sense, as in given by 'God', or being the final answer. The only thing we can say about the principles that we found and verified by peer-reviewed experiments up to any given point in time is: To the best of our current knowledge, this is what happens. A very important point to make.
"But physics can't be bypassed," you say - well who can claim omniscient knowledge of physics? There may be small exploit opportunities which can be exposed here and there.
i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; alikelypossible near term advancement.
(warning, language) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OvmvxAcT_YcHow can magnets attract or repel each other indefinitely without expending energy?
Nobody completely understands magnetism either.
let me fix it back then: Some fusion propulsion is likely near term both because there are a couple of fusion projects that lend themselves to propulsion and because politically you will see fusion in space well before Dr Chang Diaz gets enough to put more than a satellite booster sized test article on ISS if he ever gets the chance to do even that with slipping schedules, carriers and so forth.i have seen people here pan fusion propulsion.; alikelypossible near term advancement.
Fixed that for ya.
It is more likely that fission drive (Boom-boom Orion) is near term than fusion drive. My objection continues to be the careless, unsubstantiated use of the word "likely".
As to VASIMR, I'm a mite confused by all of your negatives: It isn't that unlikely? This drive is real, but it has not been scaled to the extent necessary to propel, say, MCT. It is more "likely" to be a "near term advancement" than boom-boom Orion, the way I see it.
I think one has to be careful when calling found physical principles 'laws'. They are not laws in the absolute sense, as in given by 'God', or being the final answer. The only thing we can say about the principles that we found and verified by peer-reviewed experiments up to any given point in time is: To the best of our current knowledge, this is what happens. A very important point to make.
Just want to add the observations of C.S. Peirce, who has suggested quite some time ago, that the "laws" of physics might be "habits", and that they change over time.
The gravitational constant, it turns out, is not exactly constant, but appears to vary.
I also want to point out that inanimate interpretations of the universe and evolution are as faith based as any other interpretations.
Just wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.
Nit picking.Just wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.
We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, but that'd be an extension of QM. QM itself we understand quite well and is complete. It doesn't have to be the theory of everything to be complete.Nit picking.Just wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobocy claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.
We *don't* understand QM fully. It is obviously incomplete.
Gravity etc.
A frame of reference is relative. Just a comparison to another system. It is not a physical thing. It is a physical system, be it thermodynamic, relativistic, quantum, non/inertial, whatever. A lot of folks just assume that when frames of reference are talked about, that it must be inertial.
.../... Thankfully because acceleration is relative, an observer outside of your frame of reference will see your virtual particles become real. That doesn't help us either, but the methodology is key. As you know, frames of reference are relative.
So I flipped it. How about this: We live in an accelerating universe. Our universe is accelerating at rates which we cannot ever hope to achieve. Furthermore, the rate of expansion is a curve, meaning galaxies further away are flying apart faster than the ones flying apart closer to us. Neat. So from the point of view of the universe, which is the accelerating frame of reference, our emdrive is accelerating slowly, compared to say the CMB frame of reference.
So lets imagine ourselves on a spaceship in Earth orbit and you are equipped with our brand new emdrive technology. From your frame of reference you are barely moving compared to the accelerating speed of universal expansion happening around you.
So imagine yourself inside your space ship and you're looking intently at your prototype emdrive looking for real particles to appear out of the qv fluctuations, you don't see them. Now imagine the universe is the observer. The universe observing your emdrive would see some virtual particles from the qv becoming real. This only works if the universe is expanding.
So with this mechanism, you get some arbitrary flux of real particles from the qv frame of reference (I'm assuming the qv and its randomly produced particle pairs are not inertially related to our inertial frame of reference) popping into your local frame of reference (as observed from the point of view of the universe). So I'm picturing the pair production happening randomly, becoming real, and immediately flying away at a rate matching the speed and direction of the expansion of the universe minus the influence of gravity, isotropically. My head hurts.
.../... Is gravity keeping the expansion of the universe in check at small scales? .../...
I think the logic above would have us all awash in real particles all the time. Maybe that's where matter comes from, lol.
We also under QM fully, too
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Has there been any new news on the EM/Cannae drive?http://xkcd.com/1404/
Jeff Foust has half an article on this in Space Review: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2580/1, including a brief interview with White after his talk in Mars Society conference
It's not clear what time derivative you are talking about : the rate of expansion (Hubble "constant") that goes as ~2.3e-12(m/s)/m (hey, it has dimension of a frequency !), or the change of this rate, which right now seems to be decelerating ( for a given distance you will see slower receding objects crossing this distance in the near future ) in spite of the mysterious acceleration of expansion (expansion not slowing as fast as it should, but still slowing from usual mass content gravity) ?
More confusing : the universe isn't locally accelerating, makes no sense, its local content has a local average speed that can be used as a local inertial frame of reference, but it is not accelerating in any absolute sense, there is nowhere special toward where it could accelerate ! The CMB is part of the content, take or give a few 100s km/s it's the same local inertial frame as the stars and gas averaged on a decently sized local patch, it goes with the flow, and this flow is 0 relative to receding neighbouring patches all around. Local universe is not accelerating if seen at coarse graining bigger than anisotropies. What particular direction of the sky the CMB is supposed to be accelerating (I'm not speaking of our galaxy relative velocity with CMB) ? And even if it were, it would just be free falling with us (say, with the local cluster) at the same acceleration toward a big lump in the neighborhood. Anyway it's not accelerating relative to us and relativity makes no difference between free-falling and inertial velocity in nothingness.
Hubble's Constant: H0 = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second.
The further away from the observer, you'll observe the velocity of galaxies increasing.
Just wanna add that we understand quantum mechanics "quite well" too. Nobody claims complete knowledge of QM or magnetism.No, we understand exactly what's going on in magnetism. We also under QM fully, too, it's just very counter-intuitive. Just because you don't understand it and just because it takes a lot of effort to understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood.
My objection continues to be the careless, unsubstantiated use of the word "likely".
...Some fusion propulsion is likely near term both because there are a couple of fusion projects that lend themselves to propulsion ...
EDIT I need to fix it again XD.
There is one fusion project blatantly stating they are working with NASA on a fusion engine. ...
What we do know from innumerable experiments is that in a broad range of contexts QM is phenomenally accurate. ...
So while we don't understand all QM at the frontiers of its validity and beyond, we do know quite well experimentally where the frontiers are...
...indulging themselves in "what if" scenarios of missions at the end of the paper does not serve them in terms of credibility...
I also want to point out that inanimate interpretations of the universe and evolution are as faith based as any other interpretations.
I also want to point out that inanimate interpretations of the beginnings of the universe and evolution are as faith based as any other interpretations.
[Edit: Inadvertently forgot to include the important word "beginnings" of the universe, as was pointed out below.]
You obviously don't understand the difference between "faith based" and "evidence based".
I think one has to be careful when calling found physical principles 'laws'. They are not laws in the absolute sense, as in given by 'God', or being the final answer. The only thing we can say about the principles that we found and verified by peer-reviewed experiments up to any given point in time is: To the best of our current knowledge, this is what happens. A very important point to make.
Just want to add the observations of C.S. Peirce, who has suggested quite some time ago, that the "laws" of physics might be "habits", and that they change over time.
The gravitational constant, it turns out, is not exactly constant, but appears to vary.
A new point of view towards the problem of the relationship between gravitational and quantum phenomena is proposed which is inspired by the fact that the distinction between quantum fluctuations and real statistical fluctuations in the state of a system seems not to be maintained in a variety of phenomena in which quantum and gravitational effects are both important. One solution to this dilemma is that quantum fluctuations are in fact real statistical fluctuations, due to some unknown, but universal, phenomena. At the same time quantum fluctuations have certain special properties which distinguish them from other types of fluctuation phenomena. The two most important of these are that the action of quantum fluctuations is non-dissipative for the special case of systems undergoing inertial motion in the absence of gravitational fields, and that the dispersion constant for quantum fluctuations for a particle is inversely proportional to the inertial mass of the particle. These properties are summarised in a set of principles which, it is proposed, govern the relationship between quantum phenomena, gravitation and inertia.
Smolin is among those theorists who have proposed that the effects of quantum gravity can be experimentally probed by searching for modifications in special relativity detected in observations of high energy astrophysical phenomena. These include very high energy cosmic rays and photons and neutrinos from gamma ray bursts. Among Smolin’s contributions are the coinvention of doubly special relativity (with João Magueijo, independently of work by Giovanni Amelino-Camelia) and of relative locality (with Amelino-Camelia, Laurent Freidel and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman).
Smolin has worked since the early 1980s on a series of proposals for hidden variables theories, which would be non-local deterministic theories which would give a precise description of individual quantum phenomena. In recent years, he has pioneered two new approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggested by his work on the reality of time, called the real ensemble formulation and the principle of precedence.
Since 2006, he has collaborated with the Brazilian philosopher and Harvard Law School professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger on the issues of the reality of time and the evolution of laws. ...
A book length exposition of Smolin's philosophical views appeared in April 2013...
I'm seeing a lot about knowing qm quite well vs fully. This really is moot. It is a distraction from the subject at hand which is the emdrive or derivatives. It is the height of hubris to state you fully understand anything. If we fully understood qm or its offshoots, the subject would be closed, further study wouldn't be warranted and, we'd all be Doc Brown.
I like the notion, also expounded by Smolin I beleive, that physics is good at describing what happens, but not good at explaining what happens. The great precision with which QM describes events can be mistaken for accuracy in explaining what is going on.
Agreed this is getting away from Emdrive.
Hubble's Constant: H0 = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second.
The further away from the observer, you'll observe the velocity of galaxies increasing.
Hubble's Constant: H0 = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second.
The further away from the observer, you'll observe the velocity of galaxies increasing.
a parsec = 3.2 ly
observable universe 12-13 billion light years... let´s consider it 13... 13 billion / 3.2 = 4 billion parsecs.
4 billion / 1 million = 4000
4000 * 67 = 268 thousand kilometers per second.
So at the edge of the universe, it is expanding almost at light speed away from us, right?
Thoughts anyone?
Well I can't see power being the major engineering problem here. I work with RF in my day job and power out isn't that big a deal, but higher frequencies, which equates to higher photon energies could be a problem. A waveguide for gamma rays, if you could contain them, would be very tiny. Focusing x-rays and gamma rays is a pain too.
Well I can't see power being the major engineering problem here. I work with RF in my day job and power out isn't that big a deal, but higher frequencies, which equates to higher photon energies could be a problem. A waveguide for gamma rays, if you could contain them, would be very tiny. Focusing x-rays and gamma rays is a pain too.
Question,, has anyone measured the counter force, if any to the Sagnac effect?
Well I can't see power being the major engineering problem here. I work with RF in my day job and power out isn't that big a deal, but higher frequencies, which equates to higher photon energies could be a problem. A waveguide for gamma rays, if you could contain them, would be very tiny. Focusing x-rays and gamma rays is a pain too.if i understand correctly there has recently been a development in controlling gamma rays with meta materials or something like that. i vaguely recall something about meta-materials allowing lensing or refracting gamma rays and it having implications for smaller gamma ray telescopes and possibly other applications like lasers and so forth.
Full paper regarding recent NASA test campaigns of emdrive and cannae:
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
Anyone know any ways to increase the rate of quantum fluctuations and produce a greater flux of particle/antiparticle pairs? I got an indication earlier that this happens within dielectrics to a degree. (think it was the NASA slide show) Would a really strong electric charge field work, like in a capacitor across a dielectric? Could a strong enough electric field cause these virtual particle pairs to be ripped apart before they annihilate? If so, are these energy levels realistic or very high energy stuff? I know that high energy photon interactions with atomic nuclei can cause pair production if the energy of the photons is twice the rest mass of the particle, like for electrons, it is .511 MeV I think it was. So you need high energy photons. Any way to lower the energy requirement? A lower energy requirement would allow us to use lower frequencies. That's the goal I'm shooting for here. Radio frequencies instead of Gamma. Thoughts anyone?
I thought it was tested in a vacuum chamber.Yup, bat at 1 atmosphere.
NASA has its own list of capacitors that includes aluminum capacitors with solid conductive polymer as the electrolyte material that are compatible with the wide range of requirements for working in space conditions.Isn't this a far higher power level than iPhone?
BTW your iPhone and most modern miniaturized electronic devices use capacitors with the same technology because no bulky wet capacitor would fit the form factor.
On a completely unrelated topic, unfortunately this kind of capacitor fuels wars in central Africa.
That is true and kind of inexplicable, really. But Dr Woodward tested his version of this thing in a vacuum. conclusion: this general class of device works in a vacuum.I thought it was tested in a vacuum chamber.Yup, bat at 1 atmosphere.
Capacitors couldn't take vac, IIRC.
Cheers, Martin
Radiometers do work in a vacuum, just not particularly well.
NASA has its own list of capacitors that includes aluminum capacitors with solid conductive polymer as the electrolyte material that are compatible with the wide range of requirements for working in space conditions.Isn't this a far higher power level than iPhone?
BTW your iPhone and most modern miniaturized electronic devices use capacitors with the same technology because no bulky wet capacitor would fit the form factor.
On a completely unrelated topic, unfortunately this kind of capacitor fuels wars in central Africa.
Cheers, Martin
Great post!
Welcome to the forum.
insteresting...
considering NSF user Stardrive (Paul March) works with Dr. Sonny White at Eagleworks Lab, specifically at the Q-Thrusters experiments (though if I am not mistaken he attributes the effects to Woodward Effect), I wonder if there would be any chance of him answering that.
AcesHigh:
You can inform Dr. Rodal that most of the observed forces in the Eagleworks Lab frustum devices were prompt with the same rise and fall times as our electrostatically derived calibration forces and therefore are not thermal in origins. That's not to say we didn't see thermal effects, especially with input RF power levels greater than ~35W, but the thermal effects with these large copper plus dielectric test articles, (2.5 to 5.0kg), always take tens of seconds to develop and are easily distinguished from the prompt E&M or more interesting force inputs since they always exhibit exponential rise and fall times.
BTW, the copper frustum's temperature never rose more than 1.0 degree F. when using the above average power levels and test articles.
Best,
Paul March
I have concluded that thermal transient effects are a likely explanation for the measured deflections and forces in NASA's torsion pendulum experiments of the Q drives. Explicitly, that they are the result of a shift in material location of the center of mass due to differential thermal expansion resulting from heating of the dielectric resonator which is positioned unsymmetrically. ...
I hope that these considerations, convince you ... that thermal transient effects are important and therefore that it merits strong consideration that the measured deflections and forces in your torsion pendulum experiments of the Q drives are the result of a shift in material location of the center of mass due to differential thermal expansion resulting from heating of the dielectric resonator which is positioned unsymmetrically, as explained above.
@John Fornaro: I just posted an answer by Paul March, who works with Dr Sonny White, regarding Radal's questions.
However, I have wondered how air convection could be responsible for the reproducible and fairly consistent levels of measured force pulse, as well as the fact that the experimental pulses are so well defined (and that it took practically no time to achieve the measured forces and to go back to zero upon ending the microwave pulse), and that turning the Q-drive around by 180 degrees resulted in practically the same force in the opposite direction.
You can inform Dr. Rodal that most of the observed forces in the Eagleworks Lab frustum devices were prompt with the same rise and fall times as our electrostatically derived calibration forces and therefore are not thermal in origins.
@aceshigh: answering your off topic question, my first name is a geographic accident of being born in a country where (at that time) there was a law that everyone born there had to be given names chosen from a Government-provided list. . The "J" is pronounced as an "H":D
I attempted to do a quick model of the system with your ideas. Using a few assumptions:.....@Slyver
I got a tangential torque ... in the opposite direction, and two orders of magnitude less than the net force on the system.
it´s possible Rodal. I already forwarded your previous questions to the Talk Polywell forums, but I also asked Dr Paul March if he could answer your questions directly here, so I can stop playing messenger boy haha ;)
@Paul March,
What are the units of the Electric Field (shown ranging from 0 to 3000) in Fig. 14 ?
titled "Cross section of test article (left) and close up of fields in RF drive pipe (right)", from the <<Computer modeling of the electric field within the pillbox and beam pipe (using COMSOL Multiphysics® software>>
on page 10 of your paper (with Brady, White, et.al.)
"Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH, 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
..the 24.00" long by 1.50" square aluminum pendulum arm...
..the 24.00" long by 1.50" square aluminum pendulum arm...
Thanks Paul for all this information. I am thinking of another explanation, and I have these further questions:
1) Several places in your report discuss the Magnetic Damper System:
<<Figure 3. Electrostatic Fins Calibration System and Magnetic Damper>> (p.4)
<<Whenever a force is induced upon the pendulum arm, the resultant harmonic motion must be damped. This is accomplished via the use of a magnetic dampening system (MDS) at the back of the test rig. Three Neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets interact with the pendulum’s aluminum angle to dampen oscillatory motion.>> (p.4)
<<This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system>> (p.14)
<<Figure 20. Null Test on Torsion Pendulum – average null force is 9.6 micronewtons due to 5.6A DC current in power cable (routes power from liquid metal contacts to RF amplifier; interacts with magnetic damper system)>> (p.16)
QUESTIONS:
A) Was the magnetic damper on at all times in the shown traces (for the calibration pulses as well as for the thrust pulses both to the left and right ?
B) What is the nature of the interaction << ....with magnetic damper system)>> discussed in Fig. 20 (p.16) ?
C) Are you able to apply different levels of magnetic damping (and if so have you tested them, with what results) or all you are able to do is to have this level of magnetic damping either on or off ?
D) There is a range of thrust values that were measured for the same nominal conditions. Were changes in the total supported mass and location of this mass made, and if so do they have any correlation with the range of thrust measured?
2) Do you know the cross-section of the 1.50" square aluminum pendulum arm ? (Is it solid, or if it is a channel, what are its internal dimensions?)
Jose' Rodal
3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?
feel like I'm watching a dumbshow.
So… anyone … and I mean anyone at all … do you think that there would be a electromechanical interaction of a big honking antenna inside a big conductive metal container? Ya think? No? Why not!?
I know this is somewhat the "wrong analogy" but consider, just for a second: you have a magnet that you've attached to a string. you want to measure its torsion. You place it in a copper vacuum chamber a diameter or two larger than the magnet. You start it swinging. What's the first thing that happens?
The magnet induces substantial eddy currents in the surrounding copper enclosure. This in turn generate counteracting magnetic fields. These in turn rapidly quench the oscillation of the magnet. There's real force there. REAL. Indeed, this arrangement (inverted) is used to quench the oscillations of a beam-balance's beam. Force, without stiction.
What I see is a nice big copper horn, inside a nice big metal cylinder (the vacuum cylinder). It is supposedly a high Q device, so that the microwave field will be approximately Q • P watts in energy density. Since those watts have to "go somewhere", guess what … they fill the cylinder, which has the geometry of a particularly nice Faraday shield. The chamber is not anechoic, so, they just bounce around like mad, making nodes and antinodes.
Now you think those nodes and antinodes aren't going to interact mechanically with all that metal stuff which is the apparatus?
I bet when the thing is lofted (at GREAT NASA expense) to space, it'll fail to deliver the micronewtons that it supposedly delivers. Or, to put it differently, it'll be one of the greatest days of experimental physics if it does develop the nanonewtons, when free-floating in space.
And it will be dâmned easy to measure, too. Send it off at a few meters per second "away" before turning on power. Get a good fix on its ultra-precise transmitter (laser). Turn on power. Watch it accelerate away by observing the doppler shift in the laser (sensitive to micrometers per second per second). Turn it off. Watch the change. Turn it on, watch the change. Leave it on until the power supply quits. Measure the ΔV again. It should mathematically prove, or disprove the effect.
And PS: Whenever I see in an article the stretch of imagination being used to build missions to Deimos in 50 days, I just want to puke. Its like … I need to write a book … “Seriously Bogus Science” or something.
The science which is serious enough to with straight-face, entertain all these creative things, without being critical enough of the experimental "conditions" to detect the systematic error of reasoning contained therein. The kind of science which is serious enough to pander Mills' endless succession of tripe-papers building on prior tripe-papers, purporting to have come up with a form of hydrogen in a degenerate state, that if it could exist at all would be the most common form of the stuff, and the whole Universe would have collapsed, before it was even the size of a watermelon. Oh, darn.
It is as if simply talking, and talking, and talking some more about “Q-thrusters” is somehow making them plausible, and is arguing away the systematic errors.
Folks, it is not. You don't measure micro-earthquakes during a major one. In electrical engineering as well as quantitative statistics of measurements, its called "signal to noise ratio" and "systemic errors".
To buy a $61,000,000 per lob launch-window with SpaceX, and to lob a nice space-worthy version of the device out there, to see how it works. $61,000,000 may sound like a lot to us groundhogs, but in space sciences, this is almost a rounding error. Maybe 3 rounding errors.
Furthermore, the expense is so minor, that one might reasonably get the trip "for free" from SpaceX themselves, as they clearly need to have "live fire" tests of their Falcon Heavy rocket, upcoming.
Let's say the testbed costs about a million to make competently. With 2 parts, with nice lasers, with big batteries, and all that. The thing on the test-bed didn't look like it would have cost more than $25,000 to make. I mean, under 100 watt transmitting tubes, at low gigahertz frequencies, and a bunch of commonplace copper to hold it all together. So, the test thing will be cheap 'n' dirty.
IF the Falcon Heavy launch is successful, then hey … the science cost $1,000,000. If it fails, then build another one at 10% the price (now that the kinks are worked out), and try again. SpaceX won't be put out, they can tolerate the extra (good for them) mass of a the test-bed.
If they want to get really edgy, then incorporate a bunch of micro-satellite projects from school-kids across the land. You know, growing beans in space, and whether milk will make graham crackers turn to mush in zero G.
LOL
If the measured thrust pulse were due to displacement of a mass m relative to the fixation point of the device on the arm, a constant thrust (during the pulse) implies a constant acceleration of this mass (again, relative to the mobile arm) a=F/m, and an integrated displacement at the end of the pulse x = 1/2at² = 1/2 F/m t² = 0.064/m (approx. with F=80µN and t=40s, and mass m given in kg). After this phase at constant acceleration, the displacement of mass would have to continue at constant velocity for some more time to mimic a sharp fall in thrust but not an opposite thrust pulse (has would be the case if displacing mass suddenly stopped from its integrated vt velocity). So 0.064/m is a minimum displacement, and it's 6.4 cm assuming something 1kg is moving, or 6.4mm for 10kg. Even if a thermally expanding part of the device were driving a more massive part (not needing heating the whole mass to move it), the required displacement seems much too huge for a thermal expansion, given the scales and max temperatures overall.
Nice to have some first hand feedback on this thread.
Maybe I missed that but anyone inquired or commented on the apparently systematic slope changes (downward) after the relatively clean square thrust periods ? Is there a higher period (>200s) harmonic mode in the system that gives those overall slopes on the order of 1µN/s, or is this just long period "random drifts" due to sensitivity of system ? The charts show the signals measured relative to this slowly drifting baseline (drawn as dotted yellow curve, like piecewise linear best fits). The statistically small sample makes hypothesis risky, but visually there appear a systematic downward change of slope after thruster's pulses, and (also not quite clearly) no slope changes after the (arguably smaller magnitude) 30 µN calibration periods. What is the relevance or irrelevance of this drifting baseline ?
3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?
There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...
Best to ignore Goatguy ...
Based on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.
I'm not quite following GoatGuy's reasoning, but there are issues that can arise from a high-Q RF system. My own focus of concern is unbalanced forces from RF in the feed line. Without knowing the routing of the feed line I can't evaluate these potential errors properly, but plausible case can easily produce the force levels I've seen cited.
Maybe I missed that but anyone inquired or commented on the apparently systematic slope changes (downward) after the relatively clean square thrust periods ? Is there a higher period (>200s) harmonic mode in the system that gives those overall slopes on the order of 1µN/s, or is this just long period "random drifts" due to sensitivity of system ? The charts show the signals measured relative to this slowly drifting baseline (drawn as dotted yellow curve, like piecewise linear best fits). The statistically small sample makes hypothesis risky, but visually there appear a systematic downward change of slope after thruster's pulses, and (also not quite clearly) no slope changes after the (arguably smaller magnitude) 30 µN calibration periods. What is the relevance or irrelevance of this drifting baseline ?
We found that this slope change after the test article and RF amplifer were turned on for 10-to-20 seconds was apprently due to IR radiation from the amplifier's heatsink that is mounted on the back side of the torque penlulum on an 8" square platform was affecting the top C-flex bearing more than the lower one. We tried aluminum shielding the top bearing assembly from the heatsink IR source and managed to reverse the metioned thermal slope in the thrust plots, but after shielding the bottom one we could reduce it but still coundn't completely get rid of this thremal drift artifact. Currently we are just living with it.
3. Is the torsion pendulum the only way to test a device of this sort on Earth?
There are several types of small thrust measurement devices. ...
Hey, thanks! Great overview! 1, 2, & 4?Best to ignore Goatguy ...
Sheesh, what a diatribe. Speaking as a Capricorn, he is an embarrasment to my sign.
Still, a pet peeve of mine regarding these not yet proven technologies is the discussion about future "expectations", based on "theoretical models", and the like.Quote from: the Brady, White, March paperBased on test data and theoretical model development, the expected thrust to power for initial flight applications is expected to be in the 0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe) range, which is about seven times higher than the current state of the art Hall thruster in use on orbit today.
The following predictions of missions to Saturn and all strain credulity, because they are merely the application of numbers to an equation, and do not flesh out the many requirements needed to actually carry out one of these missions, other than the single metric of "0.4 newton per kilowatt electric (N/kWe)".
It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models". It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility.
Anyhow, it is fascinating to follow the real discussion going on above.
Oh. And I can easily lowball your sister. I'll run those ads for $5M.
The NASA managers who control the research dollars have to understand the value proposition in the pursuit of a new propulsion technology or they won't support developing it, period.
John (Fornaro) and Paul (March),
The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time. There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured.
There is no hurry.
I think that we have a great line of communications !. Let's keep it going. :D
To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)
Jose' Rodal
Look up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.
"It's not acceptable to handwave such missions into a suggested plausible existance based only on "theoretical models". It's not like the technology, if proven, has no perceived utility."
It's really that simple and the managers have at least now been told the theoretical and developmental benifits and risks in the pursuit of this unproven propulsion science and technology, so they can now make an educated choice to pursue it or not based on our orbital analysis work and the current sad state of affairs in the US human spaceflight program.
Mission-to-Saturn.
286 days.
Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!
Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.
GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.
286 days.
Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!
Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.
well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.
GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.
286 days.
Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!
Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.
well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?
Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?
Jose':Paul,
I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....
Paul March is one of the nicest guys around. I have seen him taking flak and never altering his manners.
GoatGuy at NBF (they made a new article with the things Paul just published above) is now saying it´s obvious the EM Drive (or any other propellantless drive) is a perpetual motion machine because using a simple mission to Saturn in less than a year proves the energy needed to get there is orders of magnitude larger than the electrical energy input.Quote from: GGMission-to-Saturn.
286 days.
Half that is acceleration, and half is deceleration. It only makes sense to keep the thruster "on" the entire trip, to minimize trip time. Half is about 12,000,000 seconds. This is an important number.
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!
Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.
well, I guess that in a QM Drive, in theory, the electric energy only allows you to kind of access the much bigger energies of the quantum vacuum?
Speaking with a complete ignorance of this guy's past articles, should we take much note of what he says?
You should not. I'm shocked to see him quoted on this thread when we have direct practitioners- including a principle Eagleworks scientist- engaged in open discussion for our benefit. They could have taken it off-line, but didn't, and that bomb-throwers quotes only serve to shut down the benefits we're getting.
Acceleration is 0.0091 m/s² Since V = at and we know both t and a, then V is about 109,000 m/s or 109 km/s. Awesome! I wonder how much kinetic energy it has? Well, that is Ek = ½mV² and our mass is 90,000 kg. OK, easy-peasy. That's then 537,000,000,000,000 joules. about 120 kilotons of TNT as kinetic energy. Impressive!
Now, let's see. 2,000,000 watts for 13,000,000 seconds is what... 26,000,000,000,000 joules. Well then ... it looks like our spacecraft has 20.6× the kinetic energy as the electrical energy invested into its motion.
If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?
Quote from: RodalIf your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?
This question has been asked over and over again, but it has not yet been answered
Well, yes, it has been answered...
Rodal,Jason,
The Albercrombie Drive, for example, uses weird matter to distort Space in a fashion similar to that postulated in Inflation Theory...
Rodal's previous post concering the instanatious nature of the effect of gravity. ..
Hello, folks. From a poster's recommendation at NextBigFuture, I have come here to participate in this ....
Thanks for the consideration.
GoatGuy
Hello, folks. From a poster's recommendation at NextBigFuture, I have come here to participate in this and other fora, If y'all will have it. Previous posts at NBF (of mine) have been pasted here; so far, I see little love for the position(s) I've taken.
.../...
At that point, it is a free energy device.
Thanks for the consideration. I hope there will be a reply that answers this fundamental flaw.
GoatGuy
What is your physical explanation for the experimental measurements (of at least 6 different drives) at NASA Eagleworks?, including
A) dependence on the Teflon dielectric resonator (without the dielectric resonator they measured zero thrust) and
B) that when they turned the drive (by 180 degrees rotation around the Z vertical axis), with the dielectric resonator to the "left" instead of to the "right", they got a similar numerical thrust result, but now directed to the opposite direction as compared to the previous orientation (showing a thrust measurement vector dependent on physical orientation of the drive) ?
Virtual particles of the vacuum on the other hand don't appear to define a frame of reference, though they might define an "inertial reference" (tm) : Casimir effect for instance don't show different behaviour on different inertial frames (Lorentz invariant, no reference of what would be an absolute 0 speed relative to vacuum) while dynamical Casimir effect allows to measure acceleration in absolute terms (can tell an absolute 0 acceleration relative to it)....
I'd like to see some qualified explanations with Feynman diagrams showing how it's impossible to push on virtual particles (unless they are made real at equivalent energy/mass cost).
I hope there will be a reply that answers this fundamental flaw.
So really, using Newtonian mechanics to treat a Mach-effect thruster in isolation is nonsensical from the start.
....
Again, if the effect is real, then very well, we have good spaceships, and good energy generators, free energy, for all practical purpose.
as I posted before there are substantial problems with the proposed "out of the mainstream" explanations.
as I posted before there are substantial problems with the proposed "out of the mainstream" explanations.
Regarding the Wheeler-Feynman idea specifically, I'm not sure what you've stated constitutes an ironclad case against it.
it strikes me as premature to claim that time-asymmetry in one necessarily implies time-asymmetry in the other (though I may be misunderstanding something).
For another, according to the Wikipedia page (no, I'm not an expert; can you tell?) on W-F absorber theory, there have been calculations that recover the Lamb shift without requiring self-energy.
Dr. Woodward's also stated in that video that his interpretation for the inertia effect is a radiation interaction, and we know that the Weak Force interaction is paramount in a radiation interaction.
Dr. Woodward's also stated in that video that his interpretation for the inertia effect is a radiation interaction, and we know that the Weak Force interaction is paramount in a radiation interaction.
I'm sorry; you've lost me. What has the weak force got to do with the propagation of changes in a gravity field?
instantaneous action at a distance means an infinite speed
Still I make my argument regarding the three arrows of time
instantaneous action at a distance means an infinite speed
Are you sure you know what Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory actually says? 'Cause I was pretty sure I understood the gist of it, and what you've said here is wrong according to my understanding. Nothing in the theory travels faster than c, and that remains true in Woodward's gravinertial version.
John (Fornaro) and Paul (March),
The experimental results and possible explanations are not trivial, addressing and studying them will take patience and time. There are subtle issues involved because of the extremely small forces being measured.
There is no hurry.
I think that we have a great line of communications !. Let's keep it going. :D
To Infinity and Beyond (or to wherever we can get with the propulsion we have)
Jose' Rodal
Look up at the stars. Try to make sense of what you see. Be curious.
Jose':
I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. (I started down this road in March of 1998 while working for Lockheed-Martin at JSC working as an electrical engineer on the NASA Space Shuttle program.) I summarize my M-E AKA Woodward Effect research in three STAIF papers published in 2004, 2006 and 2007. I know Dr. Woodward's body of M-E work extensively having been to his lab at CSUF a number of times now, and IMO Woodward has been seeing real forces in his M-E Thruster (MET) experiments for years.
These latest experimental results on the Q-thruster is just trying to take Jim's work one step further by attempting to quantize the gravitational field in a manner consistent with Quantum Mechanics (QM), Plasma Physics and General Relativity Theory (GRT). In other words if you are not already familiar with this body of work that Dr. Woodward started in 1982, you need to perform due diligence in reading several of the papers that Dr. Woodward, Dr. White and I have written over this time period. Primarily I'm just the electrical engineer turned experimental physicist that is trying to make this exotic propulsion business work, for without something like it, humanity is doomed to stay inside the asteroid belt for the foreseeable future. In the meantime if you can't find the papers in question e-mail me a note and I'll be glad to get them to you.
Best,
Previous posts at NBF (of mine) have been pasted here; so far, I see little love for the position(s) I've taken.
@PaulMarch
Not sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?
A few caveats :
1. Your calculations are Newtonian mechanics, when approaching c speeds or Thrust/Power ratios below 1/c its no longer valid...
2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.
3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point...
4. Penultimate point : if the k factor somehow decays with acquired speed ... it's really difficult to see what would make the system "remember" this particular initial reference frame
5. Last point : the k=0.4 N/kW figure used for the mission profiles implies possible breakeven starting at speeds of 1/k=2.5km/s relative to a fixed frame. ... I'd like to see the experiment done on a freely rotating arm, in an otherwise rotationally symmetric setting around the axis.
... the possibilities of delivering grand pianos to Saturn moons for enthusiasts.
@GoatGuy, frobnicat,
Your arguments illustrate that the operational principles of the EM drive satisfy Clark's third law - they are, "indistinguishable from magic". Your arguments do not advance our understanding of those principles. Others have taken the risk and dared to postulate principles but I know of none that are accepted. Go ahead, take the risk, postulate physics sufficiently advanced as to cast light on the difference between operation of the EM drive and magic.
Regarding the EM-Drive, I thought it was pretty well established that Shawyer's explanation implied a violation of conservation of momentum, and that thus if the drive worked it would be for some other reason.
Basically, your energy balance isn't complete until you've accounted for the device's interaction with the rest of the matter in its Hubble sphere, whatever form that interaction takes. In other words, you're drawing the box too small.
Furthermore, without something to push on, you aren't just violating conservation of energy; you're violating conservation of momentum too.
...all attempts at putting intrinsic frames of reference of space/vacuum or aether back on the table failed experimentally so far ...
I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that won't go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
Dr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:
it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...
Of course not. The whole point of the advanced/retarded wave concept in W-F is that you can get instantaneous action at a distance without breaking causality; no momentum or energy or information need travel faster than c.
And it is strange to consider a General Relativity theory where one divorces completely from the Quantum Mechanics arrow of time (the Weak Force), but postulates that gravitational waves travel effectively with infinite speed, as with "action at a distance" (a concept only known in Quantum Mechanics entanglement).
Do you [93143] claim that Dr. Woodward misspoke in the video? Or that Dr. Woodward meant that instantaneous action is not an infinite speed? How long a period of time is instantaneous according to Dr. Woodward?
Dr . Woodward answers the question with the following statement:
it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...
Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".
1. Most of the objections were issues of writing style...
2. HSF
3. They can barely discern the effect from background noise (and so) I object strenuously to the culturally optimistic projections of missions to Saturn and so forth...
4. They assert that NASA decisionmakers have to be sold on the sizzle...
5. They do not answer questions about what does the device push on.
6. So.... I will be sending you a bill for the two or three sheets of used paper...
But Goat, the Mach Woodward is deflecting the intertial energy of the Universe, not unlike how a sailboat's sails are harvesting energy from the passing wind
(2) - We probably agree, but my ignorance of Noether's Theorem is a hindrance.
2. Ok so we are breaking energy conservation, great : Noether's theorem show this implies reality not to be time invariant. Hard to swallow much much below cosmological timescales.
Jose':Paul,
I've been involved in testing Dr. Harold Sonny White's Q-Thruster approach to exotic propulsion for seven plus years now, and Dr. James F. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) work for sixteen years. .....
Thank you for pointing this out. I have read with interest several of Dr. Woodward, and Dr. White's papers, including some of your own papers. It is admirable, in a sense, to have people willing to pursue research avenues that are not most popular, or commonly accepted. Concerning Dr. Woodward's, theory, to cut to the chase, as Dr. Woodward himself accepts with a smile in the following presentation (
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8hqX9JBOE#t=2468 ]
where I have on purpose timed it to when the question is asked, otherwise advance to the end of the presentation at 41:08 minutes (2468 sec)) the obvious question to pose to Dr. Woodward is:
If your interpretation of Mach's principle is that inertia is a gravitational reaction from the rest of the Universe (no matter how distant from your center of mass) how come that reaction takes place INSTANTLY ?
In other words, in Dr. Woodward's theory, the propagation of this gravitational reaction responsible for inertia, has INFINITE speed, which is problematic in a Theory of Relativity (where we usually associate gravitational waves to travel at the speed of light).
Dr. Woodward answers with a smile, that "presumably" it is a radiation reaction attributable to Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. With his smile and frank facial expression he acknowledges that this is, let's say... problematic?
Because we know that:
A) The Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory assumes that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal symmetry, there is no distinction between past and future.
B) It therefore assumes that elementary particles are not self-interacting. This is a big drawback of this theory. Indeed, as demonstrated by Hans Bethe, the Lamb shift necessitated a self-energy term to be explained. Feynman and Bethe had an intense discussion over that issue and eventually Feynman himself stated that self-interaction is needed to correctly account for this effect.
C) Wheeler and Feynman conceived of this theory before the Weak Force was understood as it is nowadays. It is known that the Weak Force implies time-symmetry breaking and gives an arrow of time. Hence the Weak Force is incompatible with the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, in this sense.
I think that it was wise that you, Dr. White, et.al., decided that <<This paper will not address the physics of the quantum vacuum plasma thruster (QVPT), but instead will describe the recent test campaign>> (Abstract of "Anomalous Thrust Production..." paper).
In that vein, I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being.
frobnicat <<3. Ok so energy is conserved but the acquired energy is pumped from vacuum, not free energy but rel cheap energy, great : quoting myself "tap into vacuum zero-point energy, which would no longer be zero-point... >>
GoatGuy <<(3) - I guess this is where I get stuck: >>
How about discussing the actual equations that Dr. White uses to calculate the thrust?
Dr. White uses a "local quantum vacuum density" that is several orders of magnitude larger than the zero-point quantum vacuum density.
(Not that I agree with the physical model they propose, see my previous posts; but it would be interesting to discuss the actual equations he uses instead)
Dr . Woodward ... it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...
Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".
Yes Dr. Woodward clearly said "presumably" (in the video I referenced)
Now, missions to Saturn in 286 days?
Sizzle, schmizzle...
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
@PaulMarch
Not sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?
@birchoff
See this paper by Paul March, Fig.7 and Fig.8, p.1330:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011
FIGURE 7. Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT Test Article, vxB core & March’s Test Stand.
FIGURE 8. Mach-2MHz MLT Test Results - Predicted Thrust is 1.3 / 5.0 Milligram-Force.
and this paper by Dr. White, slide 40:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf
It appears from this that Paul March's/Dr.Woodward's device is the one tested in the 2005 campaign shown by Dr. White giving:
Thrust ~ 3 mN
Specific Force ~ 0.3 N/kW
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here, They just havent not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is real. A nice way of characterizing these developments is like seeing smoke rising on the horizon. We would like to believe it is fire but we most investigate (experiment) to find out if our gut feeling is accurate.
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here, They just havent not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is real. A nice way of characterizing these developments is like seeing smoke rising on the horizon. We would like to believe it is fire but we most investigate (experiment) to find out if our gut feeling is accurate.
Star-Drive's been working on this stuff for years, and has built said devices himself, and he seems to be beyond a shadow of a doubt that these devices are real. High power transmitters aren't especially complex devices, and with how long everyone's been fiddling with them, it seems like it would be an effective use of time and money to build a machine that can demonstrate the effect to the naked eye, even if it wasn't useful for anything else.
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
...why not build a 33 kilowatt device...
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here...
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
HSF. HSF? Ah... Human Space Flight. See... I'm a newbie.
High power transmitters aren't especially complex devices, and with how long everyone's been fiddling with them, it seems like it would be an effective use of time and money to build a machine that can demonstrate the effect to the naked eye, even if it wasn't useful for anything else.
...It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
But (again) I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that wont go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
@Rodal
Thanks for the pointers. I was looking for that deck that you linked to on NTRS. I believe Dr. White used it in a presentation I saw this year. Anyway, the most interesting thing about that deck is it seems like there is mounting evidence that there really is something here. Though what I really wonder about is if the Boeing SFE test article had such good results, what happened to it? are there any future plans for further testing on that particular design. I cannot seem to find any information via google or NTRS documenting the test campaign that Boeing device is said to be apart of. I hope it is not covered by NDA...
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Finally, for thirds, the "public at large" believes that warp drive is around the corner, thanks to misleading advertising.
It isn't.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
Hi,Hi,
@Rodal: For a long time there was social pressure against Shawyer results and people were reluctant to show support. Shawyer was not supported by a big organization, but when DARPA in 2011 gave lots of publicity to Dr White at 100YSS conference, people's stance changed. Because this time, such research was supported by big organisations (as Stormbringer just said in his last post).
Rodal-
Regarding the tests of the Boeing Device, and how the thrust was much greater than with the Shawyer device:
Rodal-
....
You began your posts here with a strong suspicion the Shawyer results, at least were likely the result of thermal artifacts. Would such a suspicion still be warranted with the much more impressive results for the Boeing device?
....
Rodal-
...One of the reasons I brought up Dark Matter in the first place was because you were concerned that Doctor White postulated far to great a quantum vacuum density. ...
One of the reasons I brought up Dark Matter in the first place was because you were concerned that Doctor White postulated far to great a quantum vacuum density. I was wondering if the Dark Matter density might be sufficient to resolve this, and maybe better account for the 'arrow of time' issues you were discussing earlier.
That said:
[humor] possibly these various engineering teams could benefit from having a good English teacher writing, or at least critiquing their papers? Seems to me a fair part of what we are discussing here might be resolved with clearer writing in the reports. [/humor]
an interesting paper by Dr. White.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf)
In particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
Yet, that is exactly what is necessary. The terrestrial based apparatus seems subject to many more constraints than a free body experiment would be subject to. Don't tell the proponents that I'm suggesting an appropriate scaling up of their apparatus. They have neither a sense of humor nor perspective.
Everybody: please take a look at this comparison, and provide some feedback as to why the latest discussion in this forum is concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
Everybody: please take a look at this comparison, and provide some feedback as to why the latest discussion in this forum is concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
Well, I'll tell ya. The "body" of the work, that I mentioned earlier, is based on an interpretation of Mach, as explained further by Sciama. With their successive experiments, the experimenters appear to move the mathematical goalposts. I know that I can't keep up.
But pragmatically, what happens, is you guys up there talking about all sorts of "effects" and what-have-you, and no reasonably educated infividual can keep up.
Assuming, of course, for purposes of argument, that the term "reasonably educated" only includes that group of people who completely and totally understand, including, without apparent limitations, how to recover the recover the Lamb Shift, radiation interactions, gravity waves, Wheeler and Feynman (their theory of the Weak Force), the advanced/retarded wave concept, the cosmological arrow of time, 2nd law of Thermodynamics (which should be sufficient), Weak Force arrow of time, particle radiation, Quantum Mechanics (which is to be expected), the concept of action at a distance, inertia, QM entanglement, prima facie rejection of various premises, time-asymmetry, Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (oops, we already kinda sorta included that), the "Chung-Freese" metric (to which I admit freely and willingly, total ignorance of, even as a collection of letters)... I give up.
My mathematical defeat doesn't prove success to the method, nor guarantee the expected operation of the experimental apparatus.
Bottom line, and doubling as executive summary; the effect is not eplained for or to the edification of the reasonably educated individual.
We give it our best shot.
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Ok, start at 1KW then 10KW then 100KW...As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Do we need to go to 100kW ? Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or not?
Ok, start at 1KW then 10KW then 100KW...As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Do we need to go to 100kW ? Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or not?
The point is its much easier (I think) to construct higher power devices than to detect low thrust levels.
If a 1KW device was to slide down an air-track then the world would change...
an interesting paper by Dr. White.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf
In particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
1) Would you consider the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device a "scaled-up" version of the Cannae device -last tested at NASA Eagleworks as per the "Anomalous thrust ..." paper-?
or
2) Are the numbers quoted by Dr. White for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device unrepresentative because of A) some mistake I made in my interpretation or B) because Dr. White did NOT test Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device and the numbers he quoted were measured elsewhere?
I don't know
and
I don't know
Now. Will you answer why higher power devices have not been tested?I don't know
and
I don't know
Thank you
and
Thank you
Now. Will you answer why higher power devices have not been tested?I don't know
and
I don't know
Thank you
and
Thank you
My opinion: They have and it works, therefore Top Secret.
What can you say?
Now. Will you answer why higher power devices have not been tested?
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
Thanks for answering this. So it's going to need a lot more development to get to this stage then.
To put this comparison more bluntly:
Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
To put this comparison more bluntly:
Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
I think the answer to this question is simply because EagleWorks only presented a paper that outlined tests on the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. I am equally puzzled as you, since the Boeing device seems to be much more interesting. But outside of the deck and the 2013 update you linked to there is ZERO information about the Boeing test article which I find very curious given the results. From the 2013 update you linked to before, it looks like the Boeing device was tested along side the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. So unless there is some sort of NDA in place or some sort of time constraint on compiling the information necessary for inclusion in the paper or some combination there of. I cannot see a reason for why it wouldn't be included.
On a separate note, from the limited information available I am beginning to wonder if the Boeing device wasn't a Mach Effect/Woodward Effect device.
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation.
Yet, that is exactly what is necessary. The terrestrial based apparatus seems subject to many more constraints than a free body experiment would be subject to. Don't tell the proponents that I'm suggesting an appropriate scaling up of their apparatus. They have neither a sense of humor nor perspective.
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
To put this comparison more bluntly:
Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
I think the answer to this question is simply because EagleWorks only presented a paper that outlined tests on the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. I am equally puzzled as you, since the Boeing device seems to be much more interesting. But outside of the deck and the 2013 update you linked to there is ZERO information about the Boeing test article which I find very curious given the results. From the 2013 update you linked to before, it looks like the Boeing device was tested along side the Cannae and Tapered Frustum. So unless there is some sort of NDA in place or some sort of time constraint on compiling the information necessary for inclusion in the paper or some combination there of. I cannot see a reason for why it wouldn't be included.
On a separate note, from the limited information available I am beginning to wonder if the Boeing device wasn't a Mach Effect/Woodward Effect device.
Please also consider that:
A) The Boeing/DARPA measurements show a sudden impulse of very short duration instead of the practically rectangular pulses measured with the latest tested devices (Cannae and (Fustrum) Tapered Cavity). That may be a problem concerning the Boeing/DARPA device as what is needed is steady state thrust.
and
B) NO Information gets out on top secret work. None. Nada. At the time of the Manhattan Project you didn't have snapshots with small amounts of information. You had nothing getting out. The NASA Eagleworks 2013 update on the Boeing/DARPA device (look at the link) seems to be on a Yahoo server with the address xa.yimg.com. All of these are servers that host the graphic images of Yahoo pages (y=Yahoo + img=image).
an interesting paper by Dr. White.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf)
In particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper :)
**** and I don't mean this as a criticism, the equations of Dr. White are scattered in several Power Point slide presentations, I have NOT been able to find them all contained in a single entire paper
I mean this constructively, the more we address Dr. White's equations, the more fair our assessment and also the better we will understand whether his explanations are plausible or not
The tools of MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD) can be used to model this modified vacuum fluctuation density analogous to how conventional forms of electric propulsion model propellant behavior.don't understand (trying) is that : MHD tools used to model the coupling of RF field with this denser vacuum ... ?
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
not sure, but considering Star Drive is a electric-engineer, I am certain he has a good explanation for why not.
for Mach Effect devices, I know they need piezo-electric materials and ceramics that are just too expensive for anyone without some good financial backup.
an interesting paper by Dr. White.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf)
In particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper :)
**** and I don't mean this as a criticism, the equations of Dr. White are scattered in several Power Point slide presentations, I have NOT been able to find them all contained in a single entire paper
I mean this constructively, the more we address Dr. White's equations, the more fair our assessment and also the better we will understand whether his explanations are plausible or not
...attempt,.....
an interesting paper by Dr. White.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf)
In particular, I find the Math toward the end of the slide show interesting.
Thanks @aero for bringing this up. I wish we would address slides 56 to 60 of this paper :)
...
... at this level I just can do dimensional analysis ....
B) NO Information gets out on top secret work. None. Nada. At the time of the Manhattan Project you didn't have snapshots with small amounts of information. You had nothing getting out. The NASA Eagleworks 2013 update on the Boeing/DARPA device (look at the link) seems to be on a Yahoo server with the address xa.yimg.com. All of these are servers that host the graphic images of Yahoo pages (y=Yahoo + img=image).
Inventor Guido Fetta has developed a 2nd technology that develops thrust without the use of on-board reaction mass. This new technology uses RF interactions with a dielectrically loaded waveguide to produce thrust. This new technology functions by a mechanism that is different from the Cannae Drive thrust mechanism. Cannae LLC has patent pending status on a wide range of designs based on this new technology.<<http://www.cannae.com/updates (http://www.cannae.com/updates)
We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust.<< Pg 18, Anomalous Thrust Production From RF Test Device.
In that vein, I think it would be best to discuss the experiments without addressing any controversial physical explanation for the time being."
PS: A Hall thruster's input power to thrust efficiency or specific thrust is around 0.05 N/kWe using today's commercially available thrusters. Air breathing jet engines can have thrust efficiencies of up to ~75 N/kWe at take off, so assuming a 0.40N/kWe for our Copernicus Orbital calculations is not way out on a limb, and in fact is representative of the performance of my first two Mach-Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) that I built in 2003 and 2004 and reported on in my STAIF-2006 paper.
BTW, I'm a little late is saying this, but tell Goat Guy that he needs to perform his energy conservation analysis in the 4D GRT formalism and not the flat space-time Newtonian version he's been using to date when performing M-E or Q-Thruster based momentum and energy conservation calculations. Woodward's 2004 M-E derivation paper's appendix A can show what's needed here.
As for White's Q-Thrusters, energy & momentum conservation is observed by the fact that the vacuum derived propellant has an energy equivalent mass that does have a velocity less than c. And just like the standard rocket equation, your rocket's maximum obtainable velocity is dependent on the maximum exhaust velocity of the Q-Thruster that is driven by all its local and perhaps gravitational field input energies. Our current model for same indicates that these vacuum e/p pair like propellant velocities should be in the range of 10,000-to-10,000,000 m/s for the geometries and input power levels we've looked at to date, but of course only if our Q-Thruster model Excel sheet is correct.
@Rodal
I think the answer to your thrust descripancy between the Cannae and the Tapered Frustum devices may be partly answered by the size of the dielectric. According to the pictures and comsol models in the paper the size of the dielectric in the Cannae device has to be much smaller than the die electric in the Tapered Frustum.
@Rodal
.....
As for your question about the thrust and specific force numbers reported in the Deck for Shawyer's EmDrive. It is my understanding from second and third hand information that while Dr. White originally attempted to replicate Shawyer's device, they failed to get positive results. ...
So if the information is accurate then its most likely that the numbers on slide 40 of that deck are coming from one of Shawyer's papers or the Chinese papers (I have yet to double check that).
If we could use nuclear rockets, other choices would be availabe for our propulsion needs, but sadly the nuclear propulsion venue is not available to the US space program due to political issues we all know of, unless of course a fusion power breakthrough shows up on our doorsteps...
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
...why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Seriously, this time:
The cost and difficulty of scaling to that degree is prohibitive.
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Do we need to go to 100kW ? Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or no?
Ok, start at 1KW then 10KW then 100KW...
The point is its much easier (I think) to construct higher power devices than to detect low thrust levels.
If a 1KW device was to slide down an air-track then the world would change...
OK I completely agree with you and JohnFornaro on that. Now,
Does the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device have a thrust orders of magnitude (400 to 4250 times higher) higher than Cannae device -as quoted by Dr. White- yes or not? Did Dr. White's lab test the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device, yes or not?
Can someone in this forum answer that, please :)?
QuoteQuote
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
I am NOT impressed by this site. It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force. Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate. No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this. Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.
However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday. I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.
Danny Deger
P.S. Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket. This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.
I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).
To illustrate:
If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.
From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.
When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.
So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.
Nathan:
A major problem with Shawyer’s waveguide explanation is that his theoretical proof does not provide an explanation for the magnitude of the reaction forces reported. Photon rockets of any stripe with only several hundred watts of input power can't generate thrusts measured in milli-Newtons. Instead they can only produce pico to nano-Newtons of thrust from their local power supplies, unless they are also inadvertently tapping into a higher dimensional energy manifold as do Woodward's devices with the cosmologically derived gravinertial field.
However, Shawyer first has to replicate his posted video experiment in a hard vacuum (<1x10-6 Torr) and get the same results, thus precluding possible ion wind or cooling fan generated thrusts before we worry too much about his proposed theoretical approach. If he does get the same reported thrust in a vacuum though, then my bet is still on Sonny White's QVF explanation being more accurate than Shawyer’s.
BTW, as noted by GI-Thruster, I need to find the time and resources to replicate my Mach-2MHz experiment and/or exercise my new MLT-2009 test article in a hard vacuum, before we can take its results to be anything more than strongly suggestive that M-E based MLTs work as advertised. Alas, that next step for me has proven problematic so far...
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL? Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009. So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?
I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.
It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.
Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.
Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.
By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe? Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this? Why is this one special? How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react? Saying it is so doesn't make it so.
John - You're grasping at straws. The topic is Propellantless Field Propulsion and application. The test stand has no bearing on the topic beyond giving assurances that the thrust measurements were accurately made. Any good test stand will do, even a pendulum.
Aero: ...
The common wisdom is that EM drive does not work. In the case of Woodward's work, and probably Shawyer's as well, the test stand is almost as important as the tested device itself, since the expected forces are thought to be very low in the experiments demonstrated.
Woodward and Paul March have gone to great lengths to account for spurious outside signals, and even now, can barely ascertain the output of his device from noise.
A pendulum will most assuredly not work. ... The measurement of the forces is key, until such time as they float one of these devices out on the conference room table. ...
The test stand is very important. If I might repeat myself: It would be nice to read more of Rodal's analysis of the testing mechanism.
Quote
...Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate. ...
Danny Deger
Paul March's Woodward-Effect devices were tested in a completely different set-up (using a load cell instead of an inverted torsion pendulum).
QuotePaul March's Woodward-Effect devices were tested in a completely different set-up (using a load cell instead of an inverted torsion pendulum).
Maybe Paul March would test the Tapered (Frustum) Cavity using his set-up. That should also work to provide valid comparison between the two devices.
@Rodal: My feeling is that you try to find too much meaning in this whole thing. After all, there is no scientific or engineering breakthrough described in the Dr White paper, just a report on some exotic experimentations with anomalous results. I see it as some "food for thought" paper. Indeed as Paul March said, there is a "pay the bills" aspect intended for NASA managers and certainly not for scientists. This gives a specific style to the writing, which you would not find in a more traditionaly formated paper. Every organisation has its own culture and quirks.
Why haven't Paul March's Woodward-Effect devices been tested in NASA/Dr. White's Eagleworks inverted torque pendulum and reported?
If people think there is some ongoing conspiracy or that scientific breakthrough about interstellar travel has been achieved, it's entirely different topics from EMDrive purpose (or btw Cannae) which aims only as replacing auxiliary propulsion systems on satellites.
@Rodal: My feeling is that you try to find too much meaning in this whole thing. After all, there is no scientific or engineering breakthrough described in the Dr White paper, just a report on some exotic experimentations with anomalous results. I see it as some "food for thought" paper. Indeed as Paul March said, there is a "pay the bills" aspect intended for NASA managers and certainly not for scientists. This gives a specific style to the writing, which you would not find in a more traditionaly formated paper. Every organisation has its own culture and quirks.
Why haven't Paul March's Woodward-Effect devices been tested in NASA/Dr. White's Eagleworks inverted torque pendulum and reported?
...
Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
I, for one, am glad if the NASA team's test results announcement has created a flutter. At least this will encourage more experts to get involved in coming up with either a definitive proof or disproof on this matter. At least one way or the other, the matter can then be settled.
It's already considered settled by mainstream science: there is nothing there. Mainstream scientists have already looked into the EmDrive years ago and convinced themselves it doesn't work.
Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
I have been trying to find out whether some of the tests were preformed in a vacuum. From the paper, it sounds as though some of them were not -- but why have the detailed description of the evacuation process if none of them were? Can anyone shed any light?
Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?
A) There is a claim that there can be rocket propulsion produced without on-board propellant and without an outside force propelling it (i.e. solar propulsion, electrodynamic tethers, etc.)
A) There is a claim that there can be rocket propulsion produced without on-board propellant and without an outside force propelling it (i.e. solar propulsion, electrodynamic tethers, etc.)
That's not extraordinary, as you mention an electric tether does this. Are you sure there is nothing similar at work in EMDrive and others? There are many perfectly classical explanations for those experiments.
What is interesting is when an experimentation is reproducible and I don't see this here.
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that particular issue better than anyone on the planet.Presuming you are replying to my post...
I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
@IslandPlaya :
Presumably also because higher power means stronger side effects. As already stated (was it John?) ....And also this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
again, considering Paul March (Stardrive) is an electric engineer AND is working on the QThruster, he can probably answer that particular issue better than anyone on the planet.Presuming you are replying to my post...
I think there is not much sense in speculating on an issue which is actually the specialty of Paul March. Maybe you guys can send PMs or emails to him asking about that?
What speculation? It is a direct and simple question. It is relevant to the thread and enquring minds need to know.
There is probably a simple answer. I got one previously (Too expensive/difficult) that I dispute.
I would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true. As result, paul's interest was in low-k materials that can be run at high frequencies since these low k materials don't suffer the same non-linearities and other troubles most high k materials have.
I doubt the trouble is lack of materials. I think Eagle has been remarkably productive, and I have little complaint there. Scaling up a thruster to Newtons of force just to scale it up is not useful at this point. What you want are high figures of merit (FOM's) in thrust to mass and thrust to power. You can alway build arrays of thruster later on if you get decent FOM's.
I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but I'd just note that it the rumors are true and three more NASA centers are going to jump into the fray and start testing, we'll have real answers in the next year or two. Stennis already has a balance, so they could do validation studies pretty quickly. NASA has remarkable resources. They just need to be properly tasked.
I would just note though, that for a commercial grade M-E thruster, you really do want a Colossal Dielectric Constant (CDC) material that maintains its constant up into very high frequencies. Paul wasn't looking at that stuff despite I did recommend some to him.
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.
If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.
If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
I strongly object : given the hypothesis of velocity invariant thrust/power effect (with this ratio >> 1/c therefore neglecting the mass of energy... see photon rockets) then a "free energy" device is not only possible, it is compulsory.
Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.
The velocity invariance of the thrust at constant power implies that above a certain speed (precisely the inverse of the thrust/power ratio) relative to whatever reference frame you feel technologically comfortable to exchange power with the mobile, above that speed so you reach breakeven. I let you figure out where the energy comes from as seen from the cosmic horizon, but if the effect is anything like it says it is, then it can give unlimited energy for all practical purpose.
If you are implying that something can't be both a free energy generator and real, then you should consider that EM drives are not real (or not with a velocity invariant thrust/power), which I would tend to agree, though the energy might be conserved on a larger scale and that is not free energy after all (say, you are actively contributing at accelerating the demise of the Universe when running such device) in which case the effect could be valid (with velocity invariance) and be a good energy generator, not free but cheap.
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...Quote from: GiThruster...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...
What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?
Anyway, let me just post the answer Gi-Thruster gave to my inquiry at Talk Polywell forums ...Quote from: GiThruster...I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle,...
What does the "record" show? Specifically, what data doesn't he trust and why doesn't he trust the data?
Sorry Dr Rodal, ...
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.
If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.Frobnicat is correct, but it is discussed in more detail here.
If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
...
Consider a mobile thrusting at a constant 1N with a constant 5km/s velocity on a track that recovers this mechanical power and convert it to electricity with an efficiency of 0.5 : 2.5 kWe. Now you divert 2kW of this recovered power to feed back the mobile, lets say with 0.5 efficiency (transmission...), so you have 1kW of power on the mobile to power a 1N/kW EM drive that keeps the mobile going. Rests 500W of net electrical output, free of charge.
...
What?
Energy is used to impart any sort of acceleration and give the object momentum, and driving a generator would take away an imparted portion of its momentum. The losses of driving the generator in a thermodynamically sound system would be greater than the energy needed to keep the system in motion. EM drives do not change this, and it makes no difference how high your initial velocity was before you started using that momentum to drive a generator; your perpetual motion machine is going to slow down.
I don't see how you're making the leap from an EM drive providing a constant force to an EM drive imparting a constant change in velocity. I can't see how an unknown mechanism for transforming electricity into kinetic energy in one direction necessitates a surplus of energy.I think we should discuss it on that other thread. I won't mind if anyone bumps it ;)
If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.
I just want to say that this discussion has brought together cites and sources that i would spend a life time trying to find and i would not have been able to find a tenth of it on my own. at first i had doubts about the thread but now it's invaluable. thanks everyone.
If you find flaw in the mechanics of this perpetual motion, please tell exactly where, because I see none. If it is still not making sense to you then consider the EM thruster hypothesis to be wrong, and forget about the propulsion applications.
First and foremost, can you derive the excess energy mathematically? How much input power are you using to impart 1 Newton of thrust, and what is the precise mathematical relationship you're using to generate even more power, start to finish, with your generator than was put in?
...this would be a first step toward that (to me) very mesmerizing possibility of an energy generator based on the effect.
I hate to burst your bubble, but electromagnetic thrust can't be a real phenomenon and a "free energy" device at the same time.
If EM drives are real, building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
i may have a differing definition but there are all sorts of free energy sources.
yes they eventually run down. some in millions or billions of years; which is not trivial.
Free energy - Heat pumps. Much more heat or cooling provided than the heat energy value of the electricity used to operate them.
Here is an article with a more accepting slant. Still has errors but what can you do. The tests were NOT performed in vacuum.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive)
I have been trying to find out whether some of the tests were preformed in a vacuum. From the paper, it sounds as though some of them were not -- but why have the detailed description of the evacuation process if none of them were? Can anyone shed any light?
Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?
Hi,
The Wired UK article was very confusing to me when I first saw it weeks ago. The Wired UK staff should have done a better job. It gives the impression that some of the NASA "Anomalous thrust ..." experiments were conducted inside a vacuum chamber in a partial vacuum:
<<the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.>> WRONG !
These particular tests (the reported NASA Cannae and Frustum tests) were NOT conducted in a vacuum. They were conducted at ambient pressure.
The NASA authors state in the paper that none of these tests (reported in the NASA "Anomalous thrust ..." paper ) were conducted in a vacuum because they realized that the electrolytic capacitors they had would not work in a vacuum.
Dr. Woodward conducted some of his tests in a vacuum (NOT at a NASA facility).
_______________________________
<<Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?>>
It would cost several millions of dollars at a minimum (not cheap for me :) but cheaper than it would have cost decades ago). Also, whether these devices are ready for scale-up and testing in space is a debatable subject that is being debated in this thread...
Where does it say that NONE of them were in a vacuum(I know some weren't), and why does it describe the evacuation protocol?
Also a cubesat is only a kilo, so getting it up should be less than $100k, and the construction costs aren't that high...?
......
As author of the WIRED UK piece I take your point, but believe me, there were reasons ;)
Where does it say that NONE of them were in a vacuum(I know some weren't), and why does it describe the evacuation protocol?
Also a cubesat is only a kilo, so getting it up should be less than $100k, and the construction costs aren't that high...?
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.
What information does WiredUK have in this regard?
Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
.
Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --
http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesat
There is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
.
Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --
http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesat
There is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
The Cannae drive had the worst performance (in measured thrust force and specific force) of any drive measurement reported at NASA. Furthermore, NASA testing showed that Cannae's slots made no difference, as NASA reported testing a Cannae device with no slots and NASA reported about the same performance. This prompted John Baez and other scientists' negative reaction (see https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4), with Baez stating << They tested a [Cannae with slots] device that was designed to work and one [Cannae without slots] that was designed not to work. They both worked>>.Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
Do you have any recent information (or link) regarding any work of Yang Juan after the already reported (2010) paper [whose translation to English is freely available in Shawyer's site, see: http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf] showing their tests at the Chinese university ?
Please note that Yang Juan did not conduct the Chinese University reported tests in a vacuum chamber either.
The 2012 Yang Juan paper (which is also on Shawyer's site ) is more important than the 2010 one, but there are a few others including a recent one I address in AvWeek.
If people think there is some ongoing conspiracy...
Also, my understanding is that this technology could fit on a cubesat, presumably that would be a fairly cheap test?
The Wired UK article was very confusing to me ...
1) So, sure it would cost a few $. But it could settle this debate once and for all. Think of the payoff!
2) Can anyone put forward a reasoned argument why high power devices haven't been made and tested?
But (again) I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that wont go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
...building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
I hope you understand there is a limit I am willing to go in playing messenger boy between Talk Polywell, NasaSpaceFlight Forum and NextBigFuture.
The 2012 Yang Juan paper...there are a few others including a recent one I address in AvWeek.
Frobnicat is correct, but it is discussed in more detail here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35332.0
First, to Rodal:
Can you provide a schematic drawing with all the known dimensions of the various structural members, arrows of the measured forces along with the quantities of those forces, and other explanatory information in a graphic format?
I'll buy ya a Scotch.
I'll leave the math to you, then. However, without considerable evidence to the contrary, I'm going to treat the mathematical debate as an exercise in creative accounting. Free energy does not mix well with reality to date.
...building a generator out of an EM drive would be no different than using an electric fan to drive a wind power generator.
That's just not even wrong. Everybody knows that you use an electric fan to power your sailboat. Sheesh.
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.
What information does WiredUK have in this regard?
Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
I'm a freelance, but Wired UK have been about the only people who will accept articles on this for the last few years.
Unfortunately, Roger Shawyer seems to have been left on the sidelines on this one and SPR are not in a position to launch. I'm currently trying to find out what happened to the UK evaluation of his technology in 2009, but that seems to have been lost. He looks like being a pioneer whose work was taken up by others.
Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --
http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesat
There is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of the inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
It is deeply amusing (and pleasing) to me to see that the language of physics, which is mathematics isn't just universal enough for us to independently come to the same conclusion(s), but also that we took nearly the same reasoning path in the derivation.
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of the inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
NDAs are used by the military, those who have flown as tanker pilots to refuel for experimental projects are made to sign them apparently.
And until a Physicist pops up here, armed with better math to disprove the Newtonian physics conclusion ... the assertions I made will continue to show that at a velocity above 1/k, all force-making machines produce more kinetic power than the electrical, chemical, nuclear or whatever else power that the machine uses to create the force it produces.
That is a very powerful assertion .. It does not depend on a particular machine.
I would never pretend to speak for Paul, but I can relate to you what his positions have been in the past. Last I heard, he was still maintaining he believed that Sonny's QVF model and Jim's M-E model were opposite sides of the same coin, despite Jim, Sonny and myself keep arguing this cannot be true.
Why is it not possible for QVF and ME to be "opposite sides of the same coin"
Dr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question. Next question is what are these squishy intermolecular chemical bonds made of? They are typically called covalent sharing of molecular electrons and/or an imbalance of ionic electric charges between the charged ions. Ok then what is in between the electrons and ions in these dielectric molecules that is affected by the M-E equation's transient gravity waves, or in other words what do the M-E's pressure transients in the cosmological gravitational field affect in between the molecules that for all practical purposes is a pure vacuum state. A vacuum state filled only with virtual photons of the electric fields and perhaps the virtual e/p pairs of the quantum vacuum. That is why I continue to say that Dr. White in only trying to answer what Woodward's M-E "gravity" pressure waves are effecting at the molecular and subatomic scales. A place that Dr. Woodward refuses to go to this date except perhaps in his musings on the ADM electron structure where the gravitational field is used to counter balance the electrostatic field forces, but once again ignoring the basic question of what either of these fields are composed of. That is supposed to be the realm of quantum gravity, but since no one has come up with an accepted answer for same, Dr. White is free to suggest his own.
Next, in regards to the Boeing SFE work that the Eagleworks Lab performed back in the spring of 2013, since it was and is covered by NDAs, all I can comment on is the already released Eagleworks 2013 newsletter that has been pointed to on this forum. I can however assure you that these results were run in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) and are categorically NOT ion wind or unbalanced electrostatic charges.
from Ron Stahl: "I am still on record that I don't trust the data coming from Eagle, but..."
I have to reassure Mr. Stahl that I have always reported and will continue to report the actual data that I recorded In our Eagleworks Lab reports and that Dr. White has never asked me to falsify any of this data we have presented. If you think otherwise that is your privilege, but it's not an accurate picture in any way.
Best,
Well Paul, two things. First, in your analysis of the two models, you fail to note that they have completely contradictory positions about where inertia comes from. They in fact form an exhaustive disjunction. Either inertia comes from the ZPF, or it comes from gravity, but certainly it makes no sense to say it comes from both. These are not the same. And this is why Sonny has always argued that Jim must be wrong, and Jim has always argued that Sonny must be wrong. They could both be wrong. Inertia could be an intrinsic property of matter, but they cannot both be right and this is just what they say about what they propose.
Second thing yes, I understand you are reporting accurately as possible about what has been done in the lab. I also understand that (he makes here some accusations about Sonny White's character, which I preffer to not post here)
I am curious though, about one seemingly noteworthy part of this puzzle. Who had you sign an NDA? Sonny and Eagleworks, yes? Okay. Could you explain to me why Sonny said in his interview with PopSci that what he could say was restrained by an NDA? Who did Sonny sign an NDA with?
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
@Wembley
I still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust.
from Talk Polywell Forums
Quote from: Paul March
......
Next, in regards to the Boeing SFE work that the Eagleworks Lab performed back in the spring of 2013, since it was and is covered by NDAs, all I can comment on is the already released Eagleworks 2013 newsletter that has been pointed to on this forum. I can however assure you that these results were run in a hard vacuum (~5x10^-6 Torr) and are categorically NOT ion wind or unbalanced electrostatic charges.
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
@Wembley
I still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust.
That argument is the equivalent of saying "I don't see why you'd want to spend money on spaceflight when there are so many starving people in the world."
Everyone has their own priorities - and that's a good thing, as it means many different things get tried (and done.) What others choose to do (or not do) are a distraction to the case you want to make.
Dr. Woodward maintains that the M-E's mass fluctuations occur in the "squishy" intermolecular chemical bonds of the dielectric and not in the rest mass of the ions in question. Next question is what are these squishy intermolecular chemical bonds made of? They are typically called covalent sharing of molecular electrons and/or an imbalance of ionic electric charges between the charged ions. Ok then what is in between the electrons and ions in these dielectric molecules that is affected by the M-E equation's transient gravity waves, or in other words what do the M-E's pressure transients in the cosmological gravitational field affect in between the molecules that for all practical purposes is a pure vacuum state. A vacuum state filled only with virtual photons of the electric fields and perhaps the virtual e/p pairs of the quantum vacuum. That is why I continue to say that Dr. White in only trying to answer what Woodward's M-E "gravity" pressure waves are effecting at the molecular and subatomic scales. A place that Dr. Woodward refuses to go to this date except perhaps in his musings on the ADM electron structure where the gravitational field is used to counter balance the electrostatic field forces, but once again ignoring the basic question of what either of these fields are composed of. That is supposed to be the realm of quantum gravity, but since no one has come up with an accepted answer for same, Dr. White is free to suggest his own.
...
The point about the Cannae drive is not how much thrust it produced in the NASA test compared to other designs, but whether their 3 micronewton design is plausible. Because if they have backing, it will be built and launched.
..
@Wembley
I still don't understand why would somebody want to put in orbit the "Cannae drive [with] their 3 micronewton design " as you suggest, when Paul March's Woodward-Effect device has been repeatedly tested by him, and reported by NASA's Dr. White (slide 40 of previously linked reference) as having measured 1000 (one thousand) times greater thrust. What is the advantage of the Cannae device compared to Paul March's? Do you have information that its minute measured thrust is more trustworthy or better in some sense?
__
PS: the actual reported measured thrust by NASA for the Cannae device was 40 microNewtons (not 3 microNewtons)
No, it's not that. NASA won't discuss the tests, the Q-Thruster program, the recent paper, or anything related to it, AT ALL, nor make any public statement that they might have an interesting new technology.
shows that Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive is claimed (with "measurements" performed elsewhere -not at NASA-) to have a thrust force 2000 to 4000 times higher than the drives recently tested at NASA.
What information does WiredUK have in this regard?
Is Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s EM drive going to go into orbit soon - at a cost less than $100k-?
I'm a freelance, but Wired UK have been about the only people who will accept articles on this for the last few years.
Unfortunately, Roger Shawyer seems to have been left on the sidelines on this one and SPR are not in a position to launch. I'm currently trying to find out what happened to the UK evaluation of his technology in 2009, but that seems to have been lost. He looks like being a pioneer whose work was taken up by others.
Cannae are certainly continuing their work and have previously discussed a Cubesat mission with a thruster producing 3 micronewtons -- note their website is back up again now in slightly altered form --
http://cannae.com//2-uncategorised/48-cubesat
There is no indication who they are partnering with, but we they have talked to various aerospace players previously.
Yang Juan's work is also progressing largely undercover, but does appear to be progressing. I wrote a piece about this for Aviation Week which should appear shortly. My guess would be they will be the first to launch, unless NASA decide to sieze the initiative. However, the lack of comments from NASA suggests that the agency do not have any great appetitie for it, but I would be interested to hear otherwise. The lack of public statements for a new development doesn't seem normal to me, but others may know better?
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
@Stormbringer, please correct your last post because you added your text inside my quote.
@Stormbringer, please correct your last post because you added your text inside my quote.
Done.
The weird thing is in the editor i do not see a nested quote. i see only a quote at the beginning and ending of the bit about Dr Woodward's thoughts. this has happened to me before when i pared down a massively nested multi-quote post. the coding for a global quote was invisible to me and i had no idea how to fix it.
....
We already have a device which converts electricity to rotational motion, known as the electric motor. It depends upon the wheel, in order to instantaneously press, in a frictional fashion, against a local gravitational mass to convert the rotational force into forward motion.
....
,,,,
Dr Rodal: your efforts at clarifying the experimental situation for various setup are greatly appreciated. Could you add to your list the thrust/power figure for the only both theoretically sound and experimentally proven "thrust from power" that is photon rocket 1/c ? ...
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
Rodal:
Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:
Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.
Solo dicendo.
...The only reason not many professional scientists didn't even bother to comment on that case probably because of the instant trivial obviousness of this line of reasoning and conclusion, unlimited energy from an engine running at the bottom of the well : why it's all the more strange that it's not more loudly shouted by proponents of the effect being real....
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
Rodal:
Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:
Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.
Solo dicendo.
I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
Rodal:
Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:
Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.
Solo dicendo.
I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.
Ai chihuahua, so to speak...
@Fornaro, chi va piano, va sano e va lontano.
Rodal:
Grazie per i consigli. Il mio problema è leggermente diverso:
Il male dell'agnello, cresce la pancia e cala l'uccello.
Solo dicendo.
I frutti proibiti sono i più dolci.
Ai chihuahua, so to speak...
¡Ay, caramba!
Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim. ...
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.
No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence.
OK, that being what it is, then if we are pushing against the Universe, then it must be relative to our velocity compared to the universe's velocity frame. There is no way around that one, I'm afraid.
It also might imply that there wouldn't be directionality anisotropy, as the inertial wind could be directly related to the expansion of SpaceTime itself, which we now know to be ongoing, and accelerating itself. Energy from latching onto the expansion of the Universe. Wow. That'd be a big supply!
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. As I see it, The paper that was published at the AIAA conference, included a lot of details on the testing protocol, which covers how the tests were performed along with information on the pendulum set-up. Now there are a few details that were missing, but your open letter to the research team prompted Paul March to fill those details in. The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover the details about how the test article works and any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper alongside the descriptions of the Cannae and Tapered Frustum would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.
Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.
According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".
Por que latim, se estavam falando em italiano e depois em espanhol com termos típicos mexicanos? Línguas românticas, isso sim.
in other news, GoatGuy is proclaiming victory, at the NextBigFuture comments section, because nobody countered his mathematics here.
Nope. No victory, just wondering at the quantitative / mathematical silence. ...
if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...
V = 1/k ... is the velocity of the Q-device, where the kinetic energy it creates matches the input energy and...
V = 2/k ... is the velocity of a free-floating spacecraft employing the EM-thruster, where the TOTAL energy invested equals the TOTAL imparted kinetic energy of the spacecraft. ...
....
Isn't the reason we haven't heard much from NASA because from what's been said a lot of the people involved in this work have NDAs in place concerning what they can & cannot talk about it?
As a taxpayer, my expectation is that any NDA's between NASA and private companies would cover proprietary internal design of the EM drives but not the results of actual tests performed at NASA, including how the tests were conducted at NASA, details of NASA's inverted torsional pendulum set-up, etc., unless they would invoke issues of National Security, in which case it would not be a question of NDA's with private entities, but a matter of security. I have not seen anything published claiming National Security issues.
Not sure how this isn't exactly the case preventing complete disclosure. ... The only thing that seems to have been left out from the published paper is the same level of detail about the Boeing SFE test article. Which we now know was covered by NDA, according to Paul March. A bare bones NDA would most likely cover ... any analysis that could potentially allow someone to reverse engineer the device. Which means any inclusion in the AIAA paper ... would amount to a foot note covering only the information found in the deck you previously linked to.
Now I am as annoyed as anyone else about this, as the inclusion of the information on the Boeing test article would most likely strengthen the case against the critics that there is a high statistical probability that there is a real effect being studied by EagleWorks.
...I'm not so sure about that; taking the Mach-effect case and assuming the gravity wave explanation is correct...
Certainly the Mach-effect equation itself is Lorentz invariant ...
I find it mildly interesting that in Sciama's Machian inertia derivation...
if [k] is the EM-drive thrust factor, in Newtons-per-Watt (which has been widely used and quoted) then...
V > 1/k ... is the velocity .. where the Ek exceeds the input energy and...
V > 2/k ... is the velocity of a spacecraft .. where Ek exceeds the TOTAL invested energy. ...
If velocity is m/sec, and k is N/W, work thru the derivation for v = 1/k for me?
1/k = 1/(N/W) = W/N
N = kg (m/sec²)
W = N m/s = kg m²/s³
Ergo:
k = (kg (m/s²))/(kg m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)/(m²/s³)
k = (m/s²)·(s³/m²)
k = s/m
Therefore:
1/k = m/s = v.
So I get that.
Where the heck does v = 2/k come from?
(Nomenclaturalistically speaking, I thought V was typically Volume, and v was typically velocity. Solo dicendo.)
Well, if it is any consolation (and rebuttal to your position), no one has actually disagreed with my mathematics, over on Next Big NASA Fornum.
Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.
I do believe that half the people there believe I fârted in the Flower Show.
The other half daren't perk up 'cuz they know my knives are sharp.
LOL
GoatGuy
Oh, please, RogerPenna … at least have a little more backbone than just to lecture me about the wrong way about having discourse on another forum. Since you apparently are good at reading, also note over yonder that I also said, "I'm not disclaiming the results, but rather, that the results imply a fundamental break in the laws of conservation, in Physics". (Paraphrased from 3 other comments I made.)
It is like this:
They - we have a marvelous new device that develops 51.7 µN with 2.73 watts of input microwave power.
Audience - yay! Cheers! WTG! Awesome!
Goat - (begins calculations from 51.7 µN and 2.73 W)
Goat - Yes, but that's 18.9 µN/W, and a 1/k of 52.8 km/s
Goat - Above which, kinetic energy is increasing faster than input energy.
Audience - Wait! What? Anyone know what Goat did wrong?
They - Well, its about Mach's Principle and moving the Universe.
Audience - See! You just don't know, Goat, anything but Newtonian Physics
Goat - That's nice, but my math, is still right. Its a perpetual motion machine
Audience - It doesn't matter: they're right and you're wrong.
Goat - Wait! What? How can the math be right, and wrong at same time?
They - You need to understand that conservation of energy is a Universe thing
Goat - Please, by all means, show the math
They - Its already been done. Do your own research.
Audience - Yah, take that, Goat.
Goat - Sigh… in other words, go on a goose chase, wade through a ton of abstruse math, figure out where they're fudging, come back, and lose everyone of the Audience in an abstract pedantic mathematical proof. Oh, that's rewarding. NOT.
Audience - Nya, nya, if you can't do it, why should we listen to you?
Goat - because, good reader, because the [V = 1/k] criterion is absolute.
And that's what you, Roger are missing. They have experiments which are claimed to produce a certain amount of thrust for a measured amount of input power. This comes out to newtons per watt. Using bog-standard Newtonian physics, I show that there will be a velocity above which more kinetic energy is being added to the physics package, than the amount of energy being poured into it. I further go on to state that at [V > 2/k], that the total amount of energy invested in the experiment from time=0 to whenever the V>2/k occurs … is less than the total amount of kinetic energy of the device.
This, as it turns out, requires the rewriting of Physics. Not just an eensy-weensy amount, but GIANT rewrite. Further, if the postulated practical levels of “k” are achieved (variously quoted as 1N/kW to even 10's of N/W), all power generation by any chemical, nuclear, geologic, renewable, or fossil source could be retired, and replaced with the magic reactionless thrusters. That's pretty sobering a rewrite of physics.
So, yah. I'm waiting for at least one of the physicists to say something other than a retort like, "well you explain how the experiments work then, Goat". I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I've presented a seriously important Physics objection that is quantitative, easily proven and dâmning to all of Physics, if true. It is not concomitant on me to prove this more than I have. It is concomitant on those who pander theory of an alternate reality, to bring forth the equally simple idea of where all the extra kinetic energy is coming from, in mathematically followable terms.
Jeez.
GoatGuy
According to a NASA contractor report, "the concept of accessing a significant amount of useful energy from the ZPE gained much credibility when a major article on this topic was published in Aviation Week & Space Technology (March 1st, 2004), a leading aerospace industry magazine".
For a destruction of several claims to tap energy from the zero-point quantum-vacuum see pages 65 to 80 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447.pdf]>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
....
I'm not saying or believing that it is the cause of limited/clumsy/strange communication strategy of the experimenters (from a mainstream open fundamental research point of vue). The accumulation of various experiments and claimed results through the years without exponential spread of a reproducible successful reference setup is more reminiscent of the long history of self deceiving failed attempts at harnessing something from nothing. That is not by itself a proof of the later results being wrong, neither the opinion of analysts, reality has the last word, but it's indicative.
Again, Bravo!
Indeed, the silence has been veritably deafening.
Pathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions".[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953...
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
1887 Michelson–Morley experiment find very strange behavior that completely question current understanding of universe physic . After Einstein publish his theory and explain experiment everything was clear, it was 18 years after experiment.
I will not judge results of EMDrive until we could replicated or disapprove it by other tests. I think our understanding universe and fabric is still not very clear. If by some luck we could interact and use resources that build our universe, to move us around solar system, it is worth of couple millions to spend and it is definitely purpose of NASA to do it. As I mention if other test replicate results,I will recommend to bring on ISS. This is exactly reason for ISS as orbital laboratory for space exploration.
...
6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).
...
I think cheapest and best way to prove, it will be build device that could be used on ISS(my understanding weight and power consumption are not overwhelming) and move it to ISS using one of the Dragon supply missions and tested on Orbit. I think in short time we will see if it is keeping ISS on same orbit or even raise orbit.
From my perspective I feel these types of comments keep getting raised because the authors want something to force the collective community to either take notice or prove them right. Shouldn't the onus now be on the critics. Shouldn't the critics be required to attempt a reproduction and publish their results, even if it is in Conference Proceedings.
Question: Does someone know what the diameter of the base of the NASA Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster is (was)?Good question, I would also like to know the dimensions of the Frustum and the Cannae devices tested at NASA. Hopefully Paul March can answer.
Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. See GoatGuy's proofs that it cannot work. That's a proof easy to do, all you need do is ignore one source of energy while claiming that your argument is complete. It doesn't help that there is no agreement on what that ignored energy source is and only those who have positive experimental results "know" that it does exist.
... In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”....
GoatGuy
To paraphrase more briefly: If one includes the Universe's mass, and if that mass creates an inertial field, which travels both backward and forward in time at “c”, then deflecting that inertial field ought to deliver force independent of apparatus orientation, speed, or acceleration history, if it is Lorentz-transform invariant.may not be the only way to explain the positive result.
Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills...
Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...:)
Ha. Are you serious? You can't be serious :)
For example, I'm the one that wrote:
[One of Langmuir's characteristic of PS]<<Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Yes. Three examples: A) [Dr. White] a MagnetoHydroDynamics model for the quantum vacuum, B) [Prof. Woodward] an unconventional Mach effect resulting in an “impulse” mass transient term and a second always-negative “wormhole” mass transient term, and C) [Prof. Brito] a Minkowski instead of an Abraham stress tensor explanation (to name three different explanations that have been proposed). "Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from (electron/positron pairs of) virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of (the unsymmetric) Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor (without addressing "hidden momentum" as done by Poincare, Shockley and others).>>
If such a thing exists then Star-Drive is the one who would know. He would probably be the one who wrote it, as applied to the M-E thruster.Or that one cannot propel a sailboat using the wind or get energy from windmills...
Or propel a Solar Sail using the Sun or get a huge amount of energy from the Sun...:)
Yes, yes … this is what I just commented on above. The allusion has become something of a mantra: there's an inertial wind, and all such force-for-power-input devices are simply catching the breeze, not unlike a sailboat's sail or a windmill's enshrouded spars.
But is there a relatively simple derivation of this (that doesn't require 3 years of symbolic calculus and a head-full of opaque assertions) that can be set to type? I've seen simple, wordy accounts like I've just made, and I've seen 20 to 100 page papers. I have yet to see something that can fit in a few pages, and which ordinary mortals with basic physics smarts can follow. I welcome such a brief explanation; I mean that with honesty, and without rancor.
Perhaps Rodal you have the goods?
GoatGuy
The only explanation I demand at this time is, "Eppur si muove". Everything after that will just be detail. I just need to see it move a bit more clearly.
Once an unambiguous thrust signal is available, we can test it pointing in all directions, including up and down, at all times of day, at different altitudes, stationary and accelerating, on the ground and in orbit... We'll learn if it can be used as an over unity device or not, whether it's effected by the proximity of other masses, a lot of things.
Observational data is everything. Theory follows that. That's my view.
I took dimensions of the Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster off the photo as suggested, using the 1.5 inch square beam end as reference. I got this in inches:
9.9 Major diameter, 6.6 Minor diameter, 9 Length.
It's probably a little bigger than that. I don't know how to deal with parallax.
QuoteFrom my perspective I feel these types of comments keep getting raised because the authors want something to force the collective community to either take notice or prove them right. Shouldn't the onus now be on the critics. Shouldn't the critics be required to attempt a reproduction and publish their results, even if it is in Conference Proceedings.
Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. See GoatGuy's proofs that it cannot work. That's a proof easy to do, all you need do is ignore one source of energy while claiming that your argument is complete. It doesn't help that there is no agreement on what that ignored energy source is and only those who have positive experimental results "know" that it does exist.
The only explanation I demand at this time is, "Eppur si muove". Everything after that will just be detail. I just need to see it move a bit more clearly.
Once an unambiguous thrust signal is available, we can test it pointing in all directions, including up and down, at all times of day, at different altitudes, stationary and accelerating, on the ground and in orbit... We'll learn if it can be used as an over unity device or not, whether it's effected by the proximity of other masses, a lot of things.
Observational data is everything. Theory follows that. That's my view.
I took dimensions of the Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster off the photo as suggested, using the 1.5 inch square beam end as reference. I got this in inches:
9.9 Major diameter, 6.6 Minor diameter, 9 Length.
It's probably a little bigger than that. I don't know how to deal with parallax.
At this point, I'm starting to wonder if some of the more hands-on inclined people here won't start building their own versions of these things in their garages. From the photo's, the mechanisms themselves appear fairly simple, something a competent machinist could craft over a couple weekends.
I took dimensions of the Tapered (Frustum) Cavity thruster off the photo as suggested, using the 1.5 inch square beam end as reference. I got this in inches:
9.9 Major diameter, 6.6 Minor diameter, 9 Length.
It's probably a little bigger than that. I don't know how to deal with parallax.
Shouldn't the cavity be the same diameter as the wave length of the resonate cavity? In any case, I calculate the wave lengths of the 3 frequencies used as
0.155123905 m = 6.107240338 inch
0.154795507 m = 6.094311291 inch
0.159430152 m = 6.276777642 inch
I guess I don't quite understand resonance.
...
6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
"Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from .. virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, [M-E, Mach Effect, I think, is what you meant] and C) translational momentum imparted from EM explained in terms of .. Minkowski 3D+time stress tensor
Not sure if this particular check, so to speak, is a valid one. Given the breadth of human experience I would be willing to wager that if one was to limit research to only things humanity has experienced then it would not be practical for humanity to colonize the galaxy much less the entire universe. If memory serves there is nothing in the breadth of human experience up to the discovery of superconductivity that would have suggested that it was possible.
All we have is a small set of thought to be positive results.
In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”
Are you serious?R U Sirius?
..."Eppur si muove". ...
Observational data is everything. Theory follows that. That's my view.
it's somewhat of a catch 21
...
6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
"Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from .. virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, [M-E, Mach Effect, I think, is what you meant]
In the current context, Rodal and others are saying effectively, “there is a distant moving mass, that of the Universe, expanding in all directions (isotropically?); insofar as retaining the Holy Grail of Physics is concerned (either conservation of momentum, or conservation of energy, take your pick), Mach's Principle and Woodward's derivations postulate that the Universe's expanding mass is creating an Inertial Field, which is also in continuous expansion, and if this is true, then perhaps the impulse-energy and Q-thruster devices are conserving energy if the inertial field and Universe mass is brought into play”
If the universe is expanding, then its mass must be increasing, and its energy must also be increasing. If that is true, and a way can be figured out how to tap this increasing energy, then the effect would be to slow down the expansion of the universe. But if there is an "inertial wind", then lo! I am right in believing in the ether.
For example, I just got out of my chair and jumped up and down several times on the local planetary body, changing the universe ever so slightly, but changing it nevertheless.
Spare me the lesson about barycenters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29). What I did is send out a rhythm of gravity waves which changes the inertial field of the same universe.
Point being, if this energy source could be tapped, it wouldn't change the universe all that much, at least at first.
Question being, can this be explained to a reasonably intelligent person? Who might be an investor? Right now, all of the explanations sound like those reporters who pestered Barry Goldwater.
We should have a sidebar discussion about the transient changes in mass suggested by Mr. Woodward's interpretation of Mach and Sciama's theories. Maybe in it's own thread, IDK.Are you going to serve Scotch in this sidebar (as a motivator to join it) ?
...
6) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
"Conventional experience" has not shown A) translational momentum transfer imparted from .. virtual particles from the quantum vacuum, B) transient changes in mass resulting from EM, [M-E, Mach Effect, I think, is what you meant]
Well, I meant that conventional experience has not shown that ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields produce transient changes in mass (as posited by Woodward's interpretation of the Mach Effect), but however we word this you fully understood what I meant, and I agree with what you state in your latest post.
Woodward could answer that his effects are not meant to be conventionally experienced, but that's precisely what Langmuir was pointing out as one of the characteristics with which Langmuir identifies what he defines as Pathologic Science. So, if Woodward would answer that his effects were never meant to be conventionally experienced, it would still meet that particular Langmuir characteristic with a "Yes".
By the way, Langmuir did not mean that something that meets his definitions of Pathological Science is necessarily bunk, or wrong, Langmuir just says "watch out," that if one is interested in the phenomena, further, more precise experiments need to be conducted by independent peers, before accepting the results.
Again, the forces current devices exhibit is far less than small satellites see from solar pressure, drag, etc. So any effect would be hard to pull out, especially when you factor in the mass required to power it. Add in the complication that those forces are constant and these devices have only been tested for seconds at a time, it's a recipe for wasted money.
Again, the forces current devices exhibit is far less than small satellites see from solar pressure, drag, etc. So any effect would be hard to pull out, especially when you factor in the mass required to power it. Add in the complication that those forces are constant and these devices have only been tested for seconds at a time, it's a recipe for wasted money.
Rather than test at ISS or as a cubesat up front, a device could be tested on a stable high altitude balloon platform of the sort JP Aerospace makes. The test device at high altitude (not perfect vacuum of course), measure all outside movements, replicate at sea level. Compensate for variance. It would not be that expensive, certainly less than a 100k cube sat where all the variances could not be taken into account easily. This looks like a job for near-space.
it's somewhat of a catch 21
22. My work here is never done.
Well, consider that Joseph Heller began writing his novel "Catch 22" in 1953, which @JohnFornaro stated to be one of his favorite years... :)it's somewhat of a catch 21
22. My work here is never done.
well, considering it's an expression that makes no sense at all in other languages, I never used it before (in my natural language)
it's somewhat of a catch 21
22. My work here is never done.
Are you going to serve Scotch in this sidebar?
The part of Woodward's derivations that I have followed...
And izzat really true about Heller? My vin du table is the Mouton Cadet Bordeaux. Wonder if there's a bottle of the '53 kicking about?
I have seen people in blogs (not in this thread) bringing up the dynamic Casimir effect as perhaps being responsible for the EM drive thrust. One problem with the dynamic Casimir effect is that the moving mirrors responsible for the effect need to move at relativistic speeds. If the moving mirrors move at a speed that doesn't approach the speed of light, the virtual particle pairs will easily adapt to the mirror’s movement and continue to come in and out of existence without any dynamic Casimir effect. The speed of the mirror needs to match the speed of the photons to experience the dynamic Casimir effect, and since the photons move at relativistic speeds, this means that the mirror needs to move at relativistic speeds. If the mirrors move at speeds approaching the speed of light, then yes, the virtual photons then become "real" (in the sense that they will interact with the mirrors) and the mirror begins to produce light. The problem is that it’s impossible to get an ordinary mirror made of solid matter moving at anything approaching relativistic speeds. The walls of the Shawyer, Cannae and Dr. White Frustum microwave devices are certainly not moving at relativistic speeds.
Wilson et. al. (arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714) used, instead of a conventional mirror made of solid matter, a transmission line connected to a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). The SQUID changes the effective electrical length of the line and this is equivalent to the movement of an electromagnetic mirror. When modulating the SQUID at GHz rates, the "mirror" moves back and forth. The transmission line is only 100 micrometres long and the mirror moves over a distance of about a nanometre. It achieves speeds approaching 5 per cent of light speed. Then Wilson cooled the medium (to 50mK), so that the photons would travel slower and match the "mirror" speed. This worked: it was the first experimental confirmation of the dynamic Casimir effect, they spotted microwave photons emerging from the moving mirror, as predicted some time ago to occur.
But I don't see how this can relate to what Shawyer, Cannae and Dr. White did with the Frustum device: Wilson had to use a superconducting quantum interference device (which Shawyer, Cannae and Dr.White did not), modulated at GHz rates, and the transmission line was only 100 micrometres long, and everything had to be cooled down. The walls of the EM drives are not moving at relativistic speeds, and they are several inches apart instead of a nanometer apart. There are no "mirrors" moving at relativistic speeds, about a nanometre apart. And the EM drives experiments are not conducted in a medium at very low temperatures (50mK) to slow down the photons to match the "mirror's" speed.
And since we were discussing Heller, we might as well quote ... Niccolò Machiavelli
The Casimir effect has become an extremely active area of research from both theoretical and experimental points of view and its importance lies far beyond the context of QED. This is due to its interdisciplinary character, which makes this effect find applications in quantum field theory (bag model, for instance), cavity QED, atomic and molecular physics, mathematical methods in QFT (development of new regularization and renormalization schemes), fixing new constraints in hypothetical forces, nanotechnology (nanomachines operated by Casimir forces), condensed matter physics, gravitation and cosmology, models with compactified extra-dimensions, etc.
And since we were discussing Heller, we might as well quote this famous Italian, that could equally apply to the experiments at Eagleworks ("the opponents, who have the laws on their side" means in this case the Physical Laws as presently understood by the Physics community at large):
<<It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.
This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.>>
The Prince
Niccolò Machiavelli :)
It's a lot of fun to imagine what might be done with the technology, and I very much want it to be real, but we should all be operating under the assumption that EM drives appear to work because one thing or another about the experiments are wrong.
The part of Woodward's derivations that I have followed...
Uhhh... which derivations, there, kemosabe?
Also, I'm working in the privacy of my own office to follow your v=2k argument.
Just wanted to note that regarding that argument, silence is golden, and we're all getting rich. Apparently.
if one were to just assume without justification that the RF signal within the thruster behaves as a non-physical second metallic plate close to the base plate then the claimed thrusts agree closely with the 2 parallel plate Casimir force. (Plate separation about 0.917 micrometers, thrust error 0.005%)
I wish I could justify that assumption of the resonating RF energy acting as a virtual plate. The best I can do at the moment is to use the analogy of signal jamming. Suppose the applied RF signal jams the quantum electromagnetic field signal within the cavity. That, it seems to me would leave an unbalanced Casimir force on the plates and give rise to thrust from the device.
Oh by the way, If I could justify that assumption, it immediately points to a better design with thrust values a lot higher. For example, shortening the length of the cavity to suppress resonates lengthwise and at the small end, leaving only one resonance mode at the large end. This would eliminate the negative Casimir force on the small end and on the sides of the cone leaving the force on the base plate as thrust.
And note how strongly Casimir force increases with smaller values of separation, a. If this were truly the cause of the measured thrust, then electronically moving the RF energy closer to the base plate causes thrust force to increase by four orders of magnitude for each lowering of the separation by one order of magnitude. That would be a payoff worth pursuing.
Rodal could you tell us in a few words if Schwinger's explanation of the Casimir effect as originating from charge effects (more like van der Waals ...) discards the ZPE/vacuum turmoil playing any (direct) role in Casimir forces ?
how the "vacuum wavelength exclusion" effect serving the Casimir way of explaining the experimental results predicts correct magnitude for flat plates ...?
BTW if you feel pedagogically inclined and know the answer : from QFT, are the wave propagation speeds c for all the fields, including those that have massive associated particles ?
[*] Yes, in a powered microwave resonator we have photons and we also have electrons (as part of the atoms on the walls of the resonator).
Quote[*] Yes, in a powered microwave resonator we have photons and we also have electrons (as part of the atoms on the walls of the resonator).
We have a lot of other stuff there too. Remember the experiments were in atmosphere. I won't guess as to how much the air in the cavity ionized or if such could have simulated the second metallic plate or to what effect.
Point is, the internals of the cavity and interactions are more complex than have been analyzed to date. Known physics may apply, I'm pretty sure, but we really don't know enough to claim correct application of applicable all known physics. Disregarding any unknown physics, but I'm willing to try to avoid unknown physics for now.
The thrust performance of this next generation tapered test article has been analytically determined to be in the 0.1 newton per kilowatt regime. Vacuum compatible RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 watts will allow testing at vacuum conditions which was not possible using our current RF amplifiers due to the presence of electrolytic capacitors. The tapered thruster has a mechanical design such that it will be able to hold pressure at 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) inside of the thruster body while the thruster is tested at vacuum to preclude glow discharge within the thruster body while it is being operated at high power.
Figure 26 shows the dielectric they plan for their next generation RF thruster. It looks to me like it fills the cavity completely. I can't guess how much room there will be for air. Not much?
Just a reminder that "analytical determination" is not the equal of "experimental determination".I think that John is referring to the fact that the specific force of the Frustum was experimentally determined by NASA to be:
Solo dicendo.
More theoretical musing ...@frobnicat
.. If the thruster as a whole puts some of its parts at specific conditions, those can't be extreme conditions, space curvature, E/M field ... can't exceed what is routinely investigated in the lab (and in my microwave oven)...Yes, but, we do not have in our homes, our microwave oven positioned on an inverted torsional pendulum (known to exhibit parasitic modes of motion due to coupling of swinging with torsional motion) where we attempt to measure microNewton torsional forces. And we don't have a magnetic damper attempting to overdamp the motion of the inverted pendulum to attempt to eliminate parasitic modes of motion.
Obviously but what I meant (I hope that was clear) is that the local (atom scale) conditions are mundane, from the point of view of an atom. And there is not that many much local configurations possible to consider in the vicinity of an atom, various superpositions of various freq EM radiations, gravity, gradients of those, what else ? And atoms, or small bunch of atoms, have been played around for quite some long in precision measurements devices to further the understanding and quantitative verification/use of microscopic fundamental frameworks. It should be possible to derive likely prediction of quantitative correction microscopic effects from the macroscopic empirical claim... don't know the relative magnitude though... If the thruster as a whole puts some of its parts at specific conditions, those can't be extreme conditions, space curvature, E/M field ... can't exceed what is routinely investigated in the lab (and in my microwave oven)...Yes, but, we do not have at our homes, our microwave oven positioned on an inverted torsional pendulum (known to exhibit parasitic modes of motion due to coupling of swinging with torsional motion) where we attempt to measure microNewton torsional forces. And we don't have a magnetic damper attempting to overdamp the motion of the inverted pendulum to attempt to eliminate parasitic modes of motion.
Clearly the presence of very strong magnets and induced currents in the damping system is not desirable. Wouldn't it be possible to devise a system of much much lower stiffness, with a natural swinging motion period not shorter but longer than the experimental pulses (more than a minute), with no damping at all during the power on testing phases ?
I imagine that John is "solo dicendo" that it is unknown whether NASA's order of magnitude extrapolation will be realized in practice.
Ohm law is an emergent effect for large systems, not a fundamental elementary theory.
The "space drives" effects are measured at macroscopic scale and seems to require very specific arrangements of parts...
For the system to experience unheard of net momentum effects, then the parts would have to experience unheard of net momentum effects : the possibility of this new macroscopic effect implies the existence of new effect(s) at a microscopic scale ... This can't be just a matter of geometry, this should be understood at the level of particles ...
Evidently the thrust measurements are foremost related to the dielectric resonators.
Solo riportati
I stand corrected, kemosabeSolo riportati
Solo riporto? Don't know the idiomatic phrase.
where -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
Here is a paper written to describe the Casimir energy between a metallic plate and a dielectric plate within a cavity. The configuration is somewhat similar to the Tapered Cavity tested at EagleWorks.
http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml# (http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml#)
I wonder if someone can help interpret this paper. To me, it does not seem consistent with what has been published elsewhere, in particular I see an unfamiliar termQuotewhere -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
But also this paper is developed in a reference system where c=1, h-bar=1. That is a common system but how does one convert the results into standard units of measure.
I forgot, if I ever knew how.
Here is a paper written to describe the Casimir energy between a metallic plate and a dielectric plate within a cavity. The configuration is somewhat similar to the Tapered Cavity tested at EagleWorks.
http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml# (http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml#)
I wonder if someone can help interpret this paper. To me, it does not seem consistent with what has been published elsewhere, in particular I see an unfamiliar termQuotewhere -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
But also this paper is developed in a reference system where c=1, h-bar=1. That is a common system but how does one convert the results into standard units of measure.
I forgot, if I ever knew how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
Here is a paper written to describe the Casimir energy between a metallic plate and a dielectric plate within a cavity. The configuration is somewhat similar to the Tapered Cavity tested at EagleWorks.
http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml# (http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml#)
I wonder if someone can help interpret this paper. To me, it does not seem consistent with what has been published elsewhere, in particular I see an unfamiliar termQuotewhere -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
But also this paper is developed in a reference system where c=1, h-bar=1. That is a common system but how does one convert the results into standard units of measure.
I forgot, if I ever knew how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
Well yes I know that, but the author uses "1" in the equations derivation for each of these terms so where do I substitute the real values back into the end result to get real measurable values? Am I forced to carefully follow the derivation through to the end then know where the c's and h-bars go? (numerator, denominator, power, etc.)
@Rodal
Thanks for that. So what the paper shows is a very different Casimir force resulting from the containment vessel, (the cavity). But it doesn't show any reason to expect an unbalanced force giving the thrust. Ok, I'll keep looking if something else strikes me.
But it seems essential to include the RF waves in the equations somehow. I have found a way to do that (I think) but it requires some public domain software and 100 hours on a super computer. (Not very supper, only 1000 processors) still, that is 250 times more processors than I have on my machine, so the calculations would take me what, about 1000 days?
But I wouldn't know how to set up the models anyway.
i don't know for sure but i assume that the thinking is that once you have the force manifest in space you can grab it and manipulate it. if it were negative if you push it it comes toward you. So you'd presumably push on it from the direction you want to go and then it would react by moving opposite of the force you applied. even better if it was subject to amplification.
I am not convinced that the conventional force fields and inertial forces involved have been adequately investigated to ascertain that they are not responsible for the measured thrust forces.
QuoteI am not convinced that the conventional force fields and inertial forces involved have been adequately investigated to ascertain that they are not responsible for the measured thrust forces.
Did you mean "internal?"
No, I meant inertial. The thrust forces are measured in an inverted torsional pendulum that is known to exhibit parasitic motions due to coupling of torsional with swinging modes. One of the coupling modes couples the inertia of swinging in one direction with the motion of swinging in the perpendicular direction, leading to a parasitic torsional force. Another coupling mode couples the velocities of swinging motion (in perpendicular directions to each other) resulting in another parasitic torsional force. Thus, torsional forces can be measured that are not due to a thrust from the EM drive. They need to use magnetic damping to try to cancel these parasitic modes. Magnetic damping may cancel the parasitic modes and/or may produce further parasitic modes. This is why at MIT Aero & Astro the inverted pendulum is constructed such as to keep the thruster horizontal at all time, to eliminate these parasitic instabilities
Another thing I have been wondering about, especially given the requirement for an exact placement of the dielectric resonator: maybe this really is some sort of 'microwave drive' that works because of its shape and placement of microwave source? A sort of geometric loophole? No invocation of exotic quantum mechanics or violation of conservation of momentum. If so, would it still be useful in space?Not more useful in space than a photon rocket : well collimated microwave photons are not less efficient than visible light laser photons or xray photons, as far as thrust/power is concerned (at most 1/c, as usual). Since claimed thrusts are 3 order of magnitude higher, they can be explained either by
- radiation pressure building between device and chamber walls, effectively exchanging momentum with something else heavy nearby (so : not useful in space)
My other thought is some sort of 'Dark Matter' or 'Dark Energy' interaction - microwaves are cited in efforts to detect Dark Matter at least; maybe under the right conditions they could 'excite' Dark Matter or Dark Energy. But that's just a wild guess.
I agree, but we are pushing things with dark hamster.QuoteMy other thought is some sort of 'Dark Matter' or 'Dark Energy' interaction - microwaves are cited in efforts to detect Dark Matter at least; maybe under the right conditions they could 'excite' Dark Matter or Dark Energy. But that's just a wild guess.
Don't be too concerned about posting a wild guess. I wonder how often good ideas start with a wild guess that evolves. A lot of the time, would be my wild guess.
Here is a paper written to describe the Casimir energy between a metallic plate and a dielectric plate within a cavity. The configuration is somewhat similar to the Tapered Cavity tested at EagleWorks.
http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml# (http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml#)
I wonder if someone can help interpret this paper. To me, it does not seem consistent with what has been published elsewhere, in particular I see an unfamiliar termQuotewhere -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
But also this paper is developed in a reference system where c=1, h-bar=1. That is a common system but how does one convert the results into standard units of measure.
I forgot, if I ever knew how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
Well yes I know that, but the author uses "1" in the equations derivation for each of these terms so where do I substitute the real values back into the end result to get real measurable values? Am I forced to carefully follow the derivation through to the end then know where the c's and h-bars go? (numerator, denominator, power, etc.)
You can have a heck of a lot of hamsters walking inside a cylindrical spacecraft, and also pushing and pulling against its ends but the center of mass of the spacecraft is not going to translate at all.
The reason why the cylinder will rotate on a surface on Earth is because of gravity and friction between the cylinder and the surface. Sorry, there ain't no friction against a fixed background when you are in space. Just walking, pushing and pulling inside a spacecraft won't translate the center of mass of the spacecraft. You can also play with a tennis ball against one of the spacecraft's walls and that still won't translate he center of mass of the spacecraft. For the spacecraft's center of mass to move you have to let the tennis balls (or photons, or whatever) escape the spacecraft.
.....
Then too, one of the dark matter candidates has extremely low mass, (long wavelength) but no interaction ?
Here is a little thought experiment:
Imagine a perfectly reflective metal cavity, into which a photon from the outside is injected through a tiny hole in the cavity walls. When the photon hits the inner wall for the first time, it imparts 2x its impulse on the cavity (when being absorbed and then emitted again). Thus, the cavity gains a little momentum and moves a little bit into the photon's original impulse direction, aka translation. Then the reflected photon hits the opposite inner wall and effectively stops the cavity's movement again. But: Out metal box moved for a nanosecond or so, and hence the box has experienced a translational movement. At the same time, conservation of momentum was not violated: It's time-averaged ZERO. Still, we got a translation.
What do you think?
Here is a little thought experiment:
Imagine a perfectly reflective metal cavity, into which a photon from the outside is injected through a tiny hole in the cavity walls. When the photon hits the inner wall for the first time, it imparts 2x its impulse on the cavity (when being absorbed and then emitted again). Thus, the cavity gains a little momentum and moves a little bit into the photon's original impulse direction, aka translation. Then the reflected photon hits the opposite inner wall and effectively stops the cavity's movement again. But: Out metal box moved for a nanosecond or so, and hence the box has experienced a translational movement. At the same time, conservation of momentum was not violated: It's time-averaged ZERO. Still, we got a translation.
What do you think?
1) In your model you assume that one of the cavity is porous to photons but the other end is reflective
2) As per previous posts, even a photon rocket has specific force orders of magnitude lower than the reported values
I think the original photons momentum was transferred to the cavity. The doppler shifted reflected photon is what now balances forever in a lossless cavity.
I think the original photons momentum was transferred to the cavity. The doppler shifted reflected photon is what now balances forever in a lossless cavity.
Yes, the original photon adds to the system. After that, any reemitted photons zipping around are part of the system.
Well, what if it were electrons instead of photons? Somehow (help me out here) electrons originate in the dielectric, and are scattered in all directions by the high Q RF wave magnetic/electric fields. Electrons all speed to the conducting cavity walls and of course some of them travel axially toward the base plate. In the travel toward the base plate they encounter the resonating RF waves, one set of magnetic/electric fields resonating perpendicular to the end plates, another resonating parallel to the base plate.
Now will the magnetic/electric fields of the RF wave turn the direction of travel of the electrons such that they never reach the base plate but instead are turned to the side and neutralized on the metallic sides of the cavity? In that situation the side forces would average to zero but the end-to-end forces would transfer momentum to the thruster body.
Ok - the momentum originates in the electron acceleration from the dielectric by the RF energy which reacts with the cavity but are turned by the RF energy at the base which does not react with the cavity. hmm.
Dr. White's hypothesis is precisely that electron/positron pairs of virtual particles emerge from the Quantum Vacuum and the EM drive behaves as a MagnetoHydroDynamics plasma. Frobnicat, others and I have raised questions about that hypothesis.
It is a fact that has to be addressed by any (classical or exotic) explanation that:
No dielectric resonator = No measured thrust
Off center-of-mass position of dielectric resonator --> direction in which thrust is measured
Electrical Field in the dielectric resonator is orders of magnitude >> than in the rest of the cavity
DissipatedPower per unit volume = 72973 W/m^3 = 0.0729 W/cm^3
DissipatedPower per unit volume = 72973 W/m^3 = 0.0729 W/cm^3
Is that just waste heat, or is that waste heat and thrust?
Ok, I used 17 watts in the following, so it will need to be reduced a little to allow for the dissipated heat power.
I calculated that the number of electrons, 2.54E+12 from before carry a charge of 4.07E-07 C so the current flow is 4.07E-07 amps. 17 watts of power, P = I*V gives Voltage across the cavity of 41.8 MV . This is a little higher (factor of 10 higher) than the striking voltage in air so glow discharge might be a problem.
Other than that, does physics allow this mechanism?
In my model, one photon would be recycled by, say, 10^9 times.
I saw the talk about Dark Hamsters, and shall be going back to my beer soon. Still:In my model, one photon would be recycled by, say, 10^9 times.
Let's not, say, shall we? ...
Ok, I used 17 watts in the following, so it will need to be reduced a little to allow for the dissipated heat power.
I calculated that the number of electrons, 2.54E+12 from before carry a charge of 4.07E-07 C so the current flow is 4.07E-07 amps. 17 watts of power, P = I*V gives Voltage across the cavity of 41.8 MV . This is a little higher (factor of 10 higher) than the striking voltage in air so glow discharge might be a problem.
Other than that, does physics allow this mechanism?
1) Thank you for performing calculations and providing numbers :)
2) I have to think about this.
3) I look forward to other readers providing comments, performing their own calculations and cross-checking.
The second case is a bit harder to prove, but still within reach of ordinary algebra:
Ek = ½mV² ... kinetic energy as a function of V, again.
V = at ... again, now substitute
Ek = ½ma²t² and remembering that [F = ma]...
Ek = F²t²/(2m)
@Rodal -
This is my concept of what a cathode ray tube converted to a thruster would look like. It is a static picture. In this case it seems like the electrons would strike the anode with the full vertical velocity and so would generate no external thrust. That would be so because the positive anode voltage had caused increased velocity by adding horizontal velocity. This turns the beam direction but does not react the vertical velocity. But the wall does.
So - can the RF wave turn the electron beam without adding velocity?
Circuit board material 2 layers
Circuit board material 2 layers
Circuit board material 2 layers
So, glass reinforced plastic, with two intact copper layers inside?
Circuit board material 2 layers
So, glass reinforced plastic, with two intact copper layers inside?
How do we know that there are "two intact copper layers inside?"
Guys, really! TANSTAAFL!
At breakdown, when the electric field exceeds the dielectric strength, electrons are indeed released. If the applied electric field is sufficiently high, free electrons may become accelerated to velocities that can liberate additional electrons during collisions with neutral atoms or molecules in a process called avalanche breakdown.
The dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon") is 20*10^6 Volt/meter, but it decreases with increased frequency and with defects.
The reported calculations show that the electric field (maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m) was 400 times below the 20*10^6 V/m dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon"). On the other hand, if the Teflon dielectric resonator contained an unusual amount and size of defects, its dielectric strength could have been a fraction of that value.
At breakdown, when the electric field exceeds the dielectric strength, electrons are indeed released. If the applied electric field is sufficiently high, free electrons may become accelerated to velocities that can liberate additional electrons during collisions with neutral atoms or molecules in a process called avalanche breakdown.
The dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon") is 20*10^6 Volt/meter, but it decreases with increased frequency and with defects.
The reported calculations show that the electric field (maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m) was 400 times below the 20*10^6 V/m dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon"). On the other hand, if the Teflon dielectric resonator contained an unusual amount and size of defects, its dielectric strength could have been a fraction of that value.
I'm reading the chart a little differently. Looks to me like the color bar on the left is for e-field values within the thruster while the color bar on the right is for e-field values within the RF drive pipe, hence the dielectric. The color bar chart on the right has an over the top label of 3.5922 x 10^4 and red color label of 3000. But I don't know what it means as that layout is unfamiliar....
In their report they express the fact it took them significant time to analyze the distribution of the Electric Field and that realizing its importance (including the field in the dielectric) was among their most important achievements.At breakdown, when the electric field exceeds the dielectric strength, electrons are indeed released. If the applied electric field is sufficiently high, free electrons may become accelerated to velocities that can liberate additional electrons during collisions with neutral atoms or molecules in a process called avalanche breakdown.
The dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon") is 20*10^6 Volt/meter, but it decreases with increased frequency and with defects.
The reported calculations show that the electric field (maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m) was 400 times below the 20*10^6 V/m dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon"). On the other hand, if the Teflon dielectric resonator contained an unusual amount and size of defects, its dielectric strength could have been a fraction of that value.
.....
If IIUC, there is a mechanism where the RF wave in the dielectric can cause avalanche breakdown which will liberate huge numbers of electrons. But your reading of the available data is that the dielectric/RF wave interaction was selected to avoid that condition.
At breakdown, when the electric field exceeds the dielectric strength, electrons are indeed released. If the applied electric field is sufficiently high, free electrons may become accelerated to velocities that can liberate additional electrons during collisions with neutral atoms or molecules in a process called avalanche breakdown.
The dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon") is 20*10^6 Volt/meter, but it decreases with increased frequency and with defects.
The reported calculations show that the electric field (maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m) was 400 times below the 20*10^6 V/m dielectric strength of PTFE ("Teflon"). On the other hand, if the Teflon dielectric resonator contained an unusual amount and size of defects, its dielectric strength could have been a fraction of that value.
Further, avalanche breakdown in the as specified dielectric is greater than 3 x 10^6 V/m, the striking voltage in air.
So, bottom line is, "Yes, there is a possibility of the release of a large number of real electrons within the dielectric end of the thruster, via an electron avalanche." Such an electron avalanche was not a design feature of the thruster. And further, we know nothing definitive about the tapered cavity thruster.
Is there another mechanism which may have released electrons numbering in the ball park of 10^13 electrons/second? Note that is not a large number of electrons as such things go. The electron lifetime would be on the order of 10^-8 to 10^-9 seconds so at any given instant there only a few 10's of thousands of electrons within the cavity. That is a very small number as plasma densities go. Isn't it reasonable to assume that some small number of air molecules ionized within the cavity to create that small number of electrons?
Of course ionized air would result in positively charged ions also but if the cause of the electron acceleration was the magnetic field of the RF wave, then it would not discriminate between ion and electron acceleration forces. Ions would have a larger gyro radius around the magnetic field lines, and gyrate in the opposite direction (?) from the electrons but ultimately they would end up in the same place I think.
I'm on a roll here so I'd better stop before I go stupid on you.
So, bottom line is, "Yes, there is a possibility of the release of a large number of real electrons within the dielectric end of the thruster, via an electron avalanche." Such an electron avalanche was not a design feature of the thruster. And further, we know nothing definitive about the tapered cavity thruster.
Is there another mechanism which may have released electrons numbering in the ball park of 10^13 electrons/second? Note that is not a large number of electrons as such things go. The electron lifetime would be on the order of 10^-8 to 10^-9 seconds so at any given instant there only a few 10's of thousands of electrons within the cavity. That is a very small number as plasma densities go. Isn't it reasonable to assume that some small number of air molecules ionized within the cavity to create that small number of electrons?
Of course ionized air would result in positively charged ions also but if the cause of the electron acceleration was the magnetic field of the RF wave, then it would not discriminate between ion and electron acceleration forces. Ions would have a larger gyro radius around the magnetic field lines, and gyrate in the opposite direction (?) from the electrons but ultimately they would end up in the same place I think.
I'm on a roll here so I'd better stop before I go stupid on you.
It depends on a lot of things, like the amount of polarization that is achieved in the PTFE dielectric resonator.
This we know: there was no measurable thrust when they removed the PTFE dielectric resonator and the direction of the thrust correlates with the location and polarization of the dielectric resonator.
That's fine then. Due to the small number of electrons needed, we don't really need an avalanche, just some "modest" level of ionization within the dielectric resonator. Unfortunately, didn't I read that they have plans to change the dielectric for the IV&V thruster models?
[quoting another]This resonator material has a relative permittivity that is an order of magnitude higher than our current tapered cavity test article resonator material...[/quote]
The second case is a bit harder to prove, but still within reach of ordinary algebra:
Ek = ½mV² ... kinetic energy as a function of V, again.
V = at ... again, now substitute
Ek = ½ma²t² and remembering that [F = ma]...
Ek = F²t²/(2m)
Ek = ½ma²t²
you guyz have lost me
Apenas dizendo.
Apenas dizendo.
For those having difficulties following the recent discussion .... Comprende ?
How did he get from Ek = ½ma²t² to Ek = F²t²/(2m)?
Apenas dizendo.
...
you guyz have lost me
Apenas dizendo.
For those having difficulties following the recent discussion between aero, RotoSequence, Notsosureofit and me, we have been analyzing the possibility (among many possible explanations) that the anomalous thrust experimental results may have been due to (unintended) field emission of electrons from the ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator (acting as an unintended electron rocket with Teflon acting as the propellant).
If such an explanation for the experimental results would be true, it would mean that the thrust was not at all due to the Quantum Vacuum or to Woodward's transient mass effects, and the dreams of a quick trip to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn using this type of propulsion would be thoroughly dashed. Comprende ?
Well, not quite. The electron supply could be deliberately designed into the thruster using a hot cathode for example. The question becomes, is the thruster reactionless or not? If the electrons somehow penetrate the base plate and exit the system then the RF resonate cavity thruster becomes nothing but an interesting electron thruster using electrons as the reaction mass. It still has a very good Isp but charge imbalance would quickly eliminate the thrust in space. It would show very good performance when tested in a grounded vacuum chamber. But we can reasonably expect that the electron stream exiting the cavity would be detected in testing.
If instead the electrons somehow do not exit the cavity, it becomes a reactionless thruster which will allow the benefits of the high Isp of the electron beam without the problem of charge build-up on the cavity. This would be a new and to my mind very useful class of thruster.
This leads to my question, "How can the RF waves in the cavity turn the high speed electrons from the axial direction to the sideways direction to impact the side walls without an action in the axial direction?"
This leads to my question, "How can the RF waves in the cavity turn the high speed electrons from the axial direction to the sideways direction to impact the side walls without an action in the axial direction?"
Comprende ?
Comprende ?
not sure if this was spanish or portuguese (like in the last JohnFornaro posts).
Just an update from the pictures: There is circuit board material on both ends of the truncated cone. The second layer on the large end seems to be just part of the mount.
Does anyone know where the dielectric material is in the cone ?
Frustum Dielectric looks like a simulation of a superconducting cavity. Did the model use a realistic copper wall w/ complex n ??
Frustum Dielectric... model use a realistic copper wall w/ complex n ??See this COMSOL finite element demonstration paper http://www.michelsencentre.com/doc/pdf%20dokumenter/comsol/comsol_acdc_rf_42a.pdf for example
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
<<Moving forward, a new tapered cavity RF resonance system has been designed and characterized using COMSOL® with Q-thruster physics. Figure 26 shows some of the COMSOL® analysis with the higher performance dielectric resonator clearly visible. This resonator material has a relative permittivity that is an order of magnitude higher than our current tapered cavity test article resonator material. The lessons learned with antenna design and location have been factored in and the design of both the drive and sense antennas have been explicitly optimized to excite the RF thruster at the target frequency and mode (e.g., the optimal location has been analytically determined). The thrust performance of this next generation tapered test article has been analytically determined to be in the 0.1 newton per kilowatt regime.>>
Ok, I am getting confused. (something which is easily accomplished, but even so)
...
And finally...suppose the next round of tests does confirm a thrust of 0.1 newton's per kilowatt without significant issues from thermal heating, instrument problems, or an abundance of electrons. Does this mean rewriting part of modern physics?
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
2. If the [metal walls are modelled as a] boundary condition is as Rodal suggests, then what difference does it make what you make the truncated conical frusturm thingy out of?
....
6. Just sayin'.
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
................
4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations.
...............
Ok, I am getting confused. (something which is easily accomplished, but even so)Quote<<Moving forward, a new tapered cavity RF resonance system has been designed and characterized using COMSOL® with Q-thruster physics. Figure 26 shows some of the COMSOL® analysis with the higher performance dielectric resonator clearly visible. This resonator material has a relative permittivity that is an order of magnitude higher than our current tapered cavity test article resonator material. The lessons learned with antenna design and location have been factored in and the design of both the drive and sense antennas have been explicitly optimized to excite the RF thruster at the target frequency and mode (e.g., the optimal location has been analytically determined). The thrust performance of this next generation tapered test article has been analytically determined to be in the 0.1 newton per kilowatt regime.>>
Rodal, where did you get this quote from? Was it in the original paper?
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves
1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and
2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.
The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.
Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves
1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and
2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.
The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.
Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:
the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
................
4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations.
...............
WHO is going to be explaining/defending Woodward's derivation ?
Just sayin'.
Does this mean rewriting part of modern physics?
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
... 4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations.
WHO is going to be explaining/defending Woodward's derivation ? Just sayin'.
Compressed hummingbird wings? (Which is real) Ground unicorn horns? (Which is fake)
The second case is a bit harder to prove, but still within reach of ordinary algebra:
Ek = ½mV² ... kinetic energy as a function of V, again.
V = at ... again, now substitute
Ek = ½ma²t² and remembering that [F = ma]...
Ek = F²t²/(2m)
If F = ma, then F^2 = (ma)^2 = m^2a^2, correct?
GoatGuy doesn't write that. Instead he writes:Quote from: goatGuyEk = ½ma²t²
How did he get from Ek = ½ma²t² to Ek = F²t²/(2m)?
Apenas dizendo.
Nous n'avons pas encoreWas almost perfect French, just "inclure" is present infinitive while here we need "participe passé" : "avoir inclus". Had to look into conjugations tables (http://www.larousse.fr/conjugaison/francais/inclure/5448) to be sure of the ending s though !inclureinclus le français dans le méli-mélo linguistique.
Where does one find Woodward's math ? It would be interesting to see how it compares to a General Relativity interpretation.Excellent question. From what I found so far:
Yes, but are his papers publicly available and if so where ?Of the papers that I found in the web, this link (see the Appendix A) has the most complete derivation: http://wqww.theeestory.com/files/Flux_Caps___Origin_of_inertia_04-20-2004.pdf
Sorry, didn't mean to sound picky.
[
Je peux donner un coup de main sur ce petit exercice d'algèbre :
F = ma, then F² = (ma)² = m²a², (1) is correct
We want (well, GoatGuy wants) to get rid of a from Ek = ½ma²t² (2)
So from (1) dividing left and right by m² we can rewrite that F²/m²=m²a²/m²=a²
That is a²=F²/m² (really we could simply have squared a=F/m to get this one)
Substitution of a² by F²/m² in (2) yields :
Ek = ½ m F²/m² t² = (m F² t²) / (2 m²) = (F²t²)/(2m) (divide numerator and denominator by m)
CQFD : Ce qu'il fallait démontrer.
Yes, but are his papers publicly available and if so where ?
Sorry, didn't mean to sound picky.
OK. So there's a good chance I still have the '64 Sciama here somewhere, at least.
Maintenant, on arrive à elle, j'étais sûr que ce nouveau développement de la technologie serait une catastrophe écologique d'une certaine sorte, combien de colibri de poussée de 80 tonnes à Saturne? Quant à la (soi-disant faux ...) proposition plus tard, vous pensez que les licornes ne sont pas suffisamment rare pour prendre un péage sur la diversité de leur population?
Lei capisce ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l855k2Hh27c
Sounds a mite gangsta.
Yes, but are his papers publicly available and if so where ?
Sorry, didn't mean to sound picky.
OK. So there's a good chance I still have the '64 Sciama here somewhere, at least.
Interesting, note the 50KHz vs couple Gig. Capacitive effect of dielectric surface to microwaves, check.
Virtual proton/positron creation is a strong function of photon energy (Hz).
The Mach effect... was derived from a simplified form of general relativity
1) Woodward's derivation uses a flat Minkowski space. In that sense he does not use Einstein's General Relativity. He uses Special Relativity (and says so in a number of places). There is no curvature of space in Woodward's derivation. There is no covariant, contravariant or mixed tensors. No Riemannian geometry.
Gravity is given "ab initio" (unlike Einstein's General Relativity where gravity is a result of curving of space by massive objects), yet goes on to postulate transient mass effects due in most part to most distant objects. The justification appears to be isotropy of spacetime and local flatness of spacetime.
2) He uses the [rest energy/volume] relationship to [rest density] Eo=rho c^2 sometimes here and sometimes there.
3) I have not found Woodward's transient mass effect equations in any paper by Sciama. He apparently uses some results from Sciama's 1953 paper and goes on from there.
"Pair production" can only occur if the photons have an energy exceeding twice the rest energy of an electron (0.511 MeV rest energy, which doubled is --->1.022 MeV).As I understand, that is correct but I also understand that this pair is a real electron and a real antielectron (positron). And when they self annihilate they produce real energy. Not what we are seeing.
Virtual pairs are never produced. The question is can they carry momentum ?Not produced in any way that we know of. They appear from the quantum vacuum and disappear into it. I believe they do so leaving no trace of their passing. The fly in that ointment is that the electron is real as I understand it while the positron is not but to reach that conclusion I go back to the 1930's as the theory was developed. Point is, virtual electron/positron pairs do not leave an energy trace when they annihilate. Hence virtual, but the electron is real else why bother developing the theory in the first place?
See http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/"Pair production" can only occur if the photons have an energy exceeding twice the rest energy of an electron (0.511 MeV rest energy, which doubled is --->1.022 MeV).As I understand, that is correct but I also understand that this pair is a real electron and a real antielectron (positron). And when they self annihilate they produce real energy. Not what we are seeing.QuoteVirtual pairs are never produced. The question is can they carry momentum ?Not produced in any way that we know of. They appear from the quantum vacuum and disappear into it. I believe they do so leaving no trace of their passing. The fly in that ointment is that the electron is real as I understand it while the positron is not but to reach that conclusion I go back to the 1930's as the theory was developed. Point is, virtual electron/positron pairs do not leave an energy trace when they annihilate. Hence virtual, but the electron is real else why bother developing the theory in the first place?
Identifying a positron as a backwards in time electron, is an elegant interpretation that exhibits in the Feynman diagrams the CPT symmetry they must obey.
What I am saying is : the statement: "positrons are backward going electrons" is a convenient and accurate mathematical representation for calculation purposes. "As if". There has not been an indication, not even a tiny one, that in nature as we study it experimentally anything goes backwards in time, as we define time in the laboratory .
...JohnFornato...
The "t" is next to the "r" in the keyboard and it was early in the morning...But hey, it's much easier to fix this than to turn lead into gold. It's fixed now :)...JohnFornato...
You say Fornato. I say Fornaro.
But hey.
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
2. If the [metal walls are modelled as a] boundary condition as Rodal suggests, then what difference does it make what you make the truncated conical frusturm thingy out of?
....
6. The usual rejoinder.
It makes just as much difference as for example when you model the end supports of a beam made with material modulus Ea supported inside another material with modulus Eb at both ends:
blah, blah, blah...
Lei capisce ?
It's all in how one models the Boundary Conditions. Maxwell's equations are differential equations, and to solve them one needs to satisfy Boundary Conditions, just as when one solves a beam equation.
It's fixed now
There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.
2. If the [metal walls are modelled as a] boundary condition as Rodal suggests, then what difference does it make what you make the truncated conical frusturm thingy out of?
....
6. The usual rejoinder.
It makes just as much difference as for example when you model the end supports of a beam made with material modulus Ea supported inside another material with modulus Eb at both ends:
blah, blah, blah...
Lei capisce ?
It's all in how one models the Boundary Conditions. Maxwell's equations are differential equations, and to solve them one needs to satisfy Boundary Conditions, just as when one solves a beam equation.
That's what I'm getting at, my gangsta godfadda. What I took the above conversation to mean was that the results (all those Roy G. Biv color schemes) cannot be well understood without knowing the boundary conditions. Since there was "no distinction" between the cavity interor and the metal wall, you assume (which is what your "reading" of that is) that there must be a boundary condition defined somewhere. That boundary condition is not specified, and would differ significantly on whether the boundary's various modulii were based on copper or compressed hummingbird wings.
Ergo, (ipso fatso being my preferred translation, BTW) there are limited conclusions which can be drawn from the FEA display of the electric field.
Non?
It's fixed now
What??? You changed the Akashic record?
I would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.
hey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywellI take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight. Concerning the derivation of transient mass terms, I would rather use the peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Woodward than a book "Making Starships and Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes"Quote from: GiThrusterI would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.
<<Virtual particles, [this means the virtual electron as well as the virtual positron] which are what appear in the loop in that diagram, are not particles. They are not nice ripples, but more general disturbances. And only particles have the expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more general disturbances do not satisfy these relations. So your intuition is simply misled by misreading the diagram. Instead, one has to do a real computation of the effect of these disturbances. In the case of the photon, it turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly zero.>>
Yes, this is certainly correct. There is not even a mathematical reason to think otherwise. (that I know of anyway)
Always assuming that the experimental results are real:
The only hope I see from QED (so far anyway) is with the 2-photon interaction mediated w/ the dielectic dipoles, and not the symmetrical case. The dispersion in the microwave cavity would have to be connected to a nonlinear term that could generate a massive real escaping particle. (dark matter ??)
What bothers my gut is the symmetry of the GR situation in an AFR. The presence of the dielectric (and it's charge pairs) might be the antacid for that. I don't remember anyone trying to add another (nonlinear) differential equation to the EM cavity solutions to get transport properties. ( ~ bulk viscosity as in acoustics etc)
OK, enough grousing, off to dig around in the paper pile .
I'll leave the construction ... to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday.
I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight.
hey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywellI take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight. Concerning the derivation of transient mass terms, I would rather use the peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Woodward than a book "Making Starships and Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes"Quote from: GiThrusterI would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.
I'll leave the construction of Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday :)
Guarda, sto solo dicendo
I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta. It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! ;DIsn't that QM in a nutshell?
The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."
I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta. It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! ;D
The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."
Reviews of Modern Physics vol 36 pp463 and 1103
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial, although the ability to harness it is.[11] Over the years, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of the claims have ever been confirmed by the scientific community at large, and most of these claims are dismissed either by default, after third-party inspection of such a device or based on disbelief in the viability of a technical design and theoretical corroboration. Current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large [12][13] and skeptics usually dismiss efforts to harness zero-point energy by default.
Despite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. Examples of such are the work of the following authors: Claus Wilhelm Turtur,[15] Jeane Manning, Joel Garbon,[16] John Bedini,[17] Tom Bearden,[18][19][20] Thomas Valone,[21][22][23] Moray B King,[24][25][26] Christopher Toussaint, Bill Jenkins,[27] Nick Cook[28] and William James.[29]
At the end of section 2.2 "It will also be interesting to see whether in the quantized theory the inertial waves have zero rest mass" ref: P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)
well, since people who have access to Dr Woodward's discussion list do not participate in this forum (except for Paul March, but he seldom posts), since Dr Woodward is not a discussion forum user as far as I know, and since Dr Rodal doesn´t seem interested in joining Dr Woodward's emailing list, I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?It may be "a bit useless" from your point of view, but it may be bit useful to others to note that:
A lot of what I discussed may not be useful to others. But I have room to improve in the future... :)
Because if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...
A lot of what I discussed may not be useful to others. But I have room to improve in the future... :)
my point when I said it was not useful was based on what apparently was a wrong interpretation of you saidQuote from: RodalBecause if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...
if you are saying it is useful despite that quote, I gather the problem lies in my previous interpretation of what you said. No problems then.
I'm a little dubious about Woodward's derivation myself (though I haven't had the time to acquire a full understanding of it), but that isn't the part I'd have picked on. Energy is energy, is it not? If you store energy in a capacitor, is not that energy electromagnetic, therefore localizable and gravitating? If you cause a deformation in an object, can you not say the same thing about the deformation energy?
It seems to me that the "assumption" in question is not some sort of unjustifiable physical equivalence, but merely a supposition of 100% efficiency in part of the process, made for the sake of convenience rather than to trick the calculation into working out.
As always, I haven't fully explored the theory, so I could be misunderstanding...
... I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?
Dr. Woodward himself states "his leap of faith"
blah, blah, blah...
...we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place....
BTW, in Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture, Woodward’s G/I field is replaced with the Quantum Electrodynamic Vacuum field and the local reactive forces are generated and conveyed by momentum fluxes created in this QED vacuum field by the same process used to create momentum fluxes in the G/I field, but Sonny uses MHD plasma rules to quantify this local momentum interaction where Woodward does not. As to whether Woodward’s or White’s approach to this propellantless propulsion problem turns out to be closer to our reality is yet to be determined, but obtaining comprehensive and high quality data on these types of propulsion devices is the only way we will find out. In the end analysis though, Woodward and/or White’s conjectures may turn out to be wrong or just provide us some partial insights into the truths needed to build the impulse and warp drives needed to build our starships. ...
And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?
Dr. White and I hope to have at least two Q-Thruster test articles run through their paces by the end of September. We also hope to have started the warp-field interferometer work as well, but Sonny keeps getting dragged off to work on other more pressing NASA projects at the moment, so we will see how far that Eagleworks project gets when Sept shows up.
As far as the M-E work is concerned, you'll have to ask Dr. Woodward what his M-E test schedule is going to be for the rest of this year, but at least he has already demontrated a 10uN thruster back in January that could be the M-E in action or it could be something else equally interesting, but he won't be able to tell IMO until he can figure out the frequency scaling of the thrust effect he is measuring with his current shuttler test article. Whether Dr. Woodward will be able to accomplish that feat this year is TBD.
I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber, being a tunnacated cone...
Just a note - you're describing Shawyer's EM-Drive specifically. Woodward's M-E drive is a completely different animal...
Would you equate potential energy fluctuations (weight times change in height) in a hydrogen balloon as it rises in the sky (such potential energy is completely insignificant compared to its rest energy) to the energy fluctuations due to a nuclear-fusion reaction transforming hydrogen into helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy ?
...I'm copyrighting my name, so from now on you can only refer to Dr. X :)
O wait. The good doctor Rodal is speaking, even as I type...
Would you equate potential energy fluctuations (weight times change in height) in a hydrogen balloon as it rises in the sky (such potential energy is completely insignificant compared to its rest energy) to the energy fluctuations due to a nuclear-fusion reaction transforming hydrogen into helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy ?
No, because gravitational potential energy is not localizable and does not gravitate.
If you're going to complain about orders of magnitude, which is not what you seemed to be doing originally, you have to show why it's a problem with Woodward's theory, rather than just assuming people will fill in the blanks.
Because people will fill in the blanks, whether or not there is any merit in your argument.
Dr. Woodward himself wrote that it is a "wildly optimistic " and "arguable" assumption to equate fluctuations in rest energy to fluctuations in capacitor electric power input.
Dr. Woodward himself wrote that it is a "wildly optimistic " and "arguable" assumption to equate fluctuations in rest energy to fluctuations in capacitor electric power input.
No, what he said was: "Note that the assumption that all of the power delivered to the capacitors ends up as a proper energy density fluctuation is an optimistic, indeed, perhaps wildly optimistic, assumption. Nonetheless, it is arguably a reasonable place to start."
That doesn't sound like a physics equivalence on thin ice to me. That sounds like a caveat regarding practical considerations; that is, an efficiency argument. The key phrase is "all of".
And as we've already established, the physics equivalence is sound.
Sometimes people assume that the capacitor plates are held apart without completely examining how they are held in place, thus ignoring the stresses involved.
A.Einstein "E = mc2: the most urgent problem of our time" Science illustrated, vol. 1 no. 1, April issue, pp. 16–17, 1946 (item 417 in the "Bibliography"
...the unphysical expectation that fluctuations in electric power input to a mundane capacitor can result in measurable thrust forces useful for "propellant-less" space propulsion...
When an object is pulled in the direction of motion, it gains momentum and energy, but when the object is already traveling near the speed of light, it cannot move much faster, no matter how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase without bounds, whereas its speed approaches a constant value—the speed of light. This implies that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity, nor can the kinetic energy be a constant times the square of the velocity. ...
A property called the relativistic mass is defined as the ratio of the momentum of an object to its velocity. ...
The fact that the released energy is not easily weighed in many such cases, may cause its mass to be neglected as though it no longer existed. This circumstance has encouraged the false idea of conversion of mass to energy, rather than the correct idea that the binding energy of such systems is relatively large, and exhibits a measurable mass, which is removed when the binding energy is removed. ...
In physics, there are two distinct concepts of mass: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the quantity that determines the strength of the gravitational field generated by an object, as well as the gravitational force acting on the object when it is immersed in a gravitational field produced by other bodies. The inertial mass, on the other hand, quantifies how much an object accelerates if a given force is applied to it. ...
Due to inefficient mechanisms of production, making antimatter always requires far more usable energy than would be released when it was annihilated. ...
We walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot. ...and gradually the idea took shape... explained by Bohr's idea that the nucleus is like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself... We knew there were strong forces that would resist, ..just as surface tension. But nuclei differed from ordinary drops. At this point we both sat down on a tree trunk and started to calculate on scraps of paper. ...the Uranium nucleus might indeed be a very wobbly, unstable drop, ready to divide itself... But, ...when the two drops separated they would be driven apart by electrical repulsion, about 200 MeV in all. Fortunately Lise Meitner remembered how to compute the masses of nuclei... and worked out that the two nuclei formed... would be lighter by about one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy is created, according to Einstein's formula E = mc2, and... the mass was just equivalent to 200 MeV; it all fitted!
Still just poking around. This ref from another list (Polywell ?)Interesting: <<During the discharges, the devices were strongly pushed in the direction opposed to the electron flow. The layered devices were apparently propelled by their emission of a momentum-bearing flux of an unknown nature.>>
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/10455
Suggests to me that the dielectric may not be there because of "flux capacitors", but rather to make that surface look as close to a superconducive surface as possible (perfect reflectivity). This is done all the time by adding a dielectric layer onto an existing reflective surface. (in extreme cases we've made neutron mirrors w/ 1300 layers, but I digress) You need all 3 complex indices at the wavelength of interest to get "perfect" reflectivity. Typical telescope reflector is Al/SiO2, etc etc
No way of telling unless someone tells what the model is.
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves
1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and
2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.
The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.
Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:
the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.
Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves
1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and
2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.
The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.
Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.
Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:
the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.
Speaking to that- What do you suppose the chances are that this is just a very obscure implementation of a "Dean Drive?"
Obviously the reaction is not due to bouncing on the ground. They used liquid metal contacts to avoid forces transmitted via the conductors. What about forces transmitted via the RF wave guide or was that question addressed already?
We could do that here (non-academic) but who in their right mind would put up the 100k or more to cover the time and overhead even if it was done at cost ?
Always a thought !
Still pokin', COMSOL EM models ?
http://www.microwavejournal.com/ext/resources/BGDownload/4/d/3D%20Electromagnetic%20Field%20Simulation.pdf?1326826605
"Respective to the boundary conditions, the
walls of the cavity are considered as perfect
conductors, represented by the boundary
condition
0
=
×
E
n
r
r
. That is, the tangential
electric field component is zero. To simulate the
temperature variation in a ceramic material in the
cavity, we used a symmetry cut as a mirror
symmetry for the electric field, which is
represented by the boundary condition
0
=
×
H
n
r
r
. "
Hmmmm. Need to figure out how to copy formulas, but you get the idea.
[Dielectric resonator] sample cracking means the strong possibility of dielectric breakdown and the field emission of real electrons, as we had discussed earlier on !
Take a look at my subsequent comment:
[Dielectric resonator] sample cracking means the strong possibility of dielectric breakdown and the field emission of real electrons, as we had discussed earlier on !
So, the actual thrust seen is essentially like the recoil from some sort of electron gun?
Doesn't this indicate that thrust is being produced by the decay of matter from a microwave gun?
Wouldn't that make this a sort of highly effecient ion drive? Much lower power requirements, solid matter being converted to high energy ions from a solid instead of from a gas. That is, If I understand what you're saying correctly.
If so, then they DO has a sort of working high effeciency EM drive that is essentially a Solidstate Ion Thruster.
Or am I not understanding what you're saying.
Where are the Boeing/DARPA specific force tests ?Take a look at:
The practical problem with independent verification (at John Hopkins or other universities) is that the scientific community has dismissed the NASA propellant-less tests (either vocally as done by John Baez and Sean Carroll, or quietly as done by most other academics in Aerospace Engineering -and quietly dismissing these results at other NASA propulsion centers-). The academic community -particularly nowadays- knows that it is not considered to be an advancement to their career to produce independent experimental data that nullifies esoteric claims (claims that run contrary to conservation of momentum and known physics) that the rest of the community will meet with "I could have told you that". So academics at MIT, Stanford, CalTech, etc., are negatively motivated, they actually have a disincentive to spend their time and effort to examine these exotic claims.
It was a different case for Cold Fusion because in 1989 Martin Fleischmann -the Cold Fusion proponent- was considered to be one of the world's leading electrochemists and because the world has much more interest in a cheap form of power production than they have on a quicker trip to Enceladus.
That's depressing to read, sounds like its going to be hard to get anyone to stick their head above the parapet and actually look into this from a neutral third party viewpoint.
That's depressing to read, sounds like its going to be hard to get anyone to stick their head above the parapet and actually look into this from a neutral third party viewpoint.
1) I think that independent testing with null results of EM drives has already been done and reported, utilizing a classical testing device. I will be posting shortly negative results already reported in the literature, performed by a third party, that I am presently reviewing.
2) Regardless of positive or negative results by third parties, it is noteworthy that Boeing/DARPA as recently as 2013 had their device tested at NASA/Eagleworks who reported a specific force orders of magnitude above the 2014 campaign featuring the Cannae and Frustum devices (albeit with an impulse response rather than a rectangular pulse, which may be problematic for practical propulsion applications). If the Boeing/DARPA results were indeed valid, I think that both Boeing and DARPA would be pursuing further, perhaps secret, work, don't ya think?
Reviews of Modern Physics vol 36 pp463 and 1103
"The Physical Structure of General Relativity"
Or a lot of negative results being kept secret while positive ones (or apparently positive ones) are published.
If the rest of the universe determines the inertial frames, it follows that inertia is not an intrinsic property of matter, but arises as a result of the interaction of matter with the rest of the matter in the universe.
Or a lot of negative results being kept secret while positive ones (or apparently positive ones) are published.
Yeah, there's that too. Remember way back when, when the Russians and us too, I suppose, were investigating mental telepathy as a "secret" weapon? Part of the due diligence of national security is to test seemingly weird things to verify whether or not there's "science" backing them up. Obviously, there would be great security issues as well as commercial issues surrounding a propellantless drive.
.........................Quote from: Sciama 1953If the rest of the universe determines the inertial frames, it follows that inertia is not an intrinsic property of matter, but arises as a result of the interaction of matter with the rest of the matter in the universe.
...............
It's totally understandable from an emotional standpoint, why the experimentors hesitate to address the multiple skeptical arguments questioning their procedures and math, preferring to quietly assert that still, the device moves, though no other sees the movement.
Sheesh. <- Translate that!
Dont't agree with your final note, John, this is a joint community effort, of which I have been only a very small part and late to join. Thanks to all of you who have expressed your views (both agreeing and disagreeing with me): I have learnt a lot about these experiments from joining this forum.
#2 The other side of the coin is that you can say the same thing about the Higgs field.Good point, but the Higgs field is not introduced as a "fudge factor" multiplying expressions derived from General Relativity. If a theory (like Woodward's) that is derived from Sciama does not agree with experiments (because it gives changes in mass that are much lower than predicted or non-existent), it is not proper to try to fix it simply by introducing a "fudge factor".
....
I do note that I have found a weakness in your translation skills! Sheesh.
#2 The other side of the coin is that you can say the same thing about the Higgs field.Good point, but the Higgs field is not introduced as a "fudge factor" multiplying expressions derived from General Relativity. If a theory (like Woodward's) that is derived from Sciama does not agree with experiments (because it gives changes in mass that are much lower than predicted or non-existent), it is not proper to try to fix it simply by introducing a "fudge factor".
EDIT: I am referring to the two "efficiency" fudge factors "eta1" and "eta2" with which Buldrini for example attempts to "fix" Woodward's theory on page 77 of this reference: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=484587 . Buldrini himself admits this is a "rough" attempt to fix the theory. The "efficiency parameter" values are of an unknown nature and unknown magnitude, admitted by Buldrini as varying between 0 and 1. Obviously, if these fudge factors are zero, there is no Woodward effect. This is evidently a very unsatisfactory way to proceed in a derivation that pretends to originate from Sciama's Relativity Mach effect, as Sciama himself has stated that his Machian effect is not an intrinsic material property, and theories that are contradicted by experiment shouldn't be fixed with fudge factors.
Moreover, it is somewhat ironic to refer to Sciama's theory, whose intention was to remove inertia as an intrinsic property, and to end up with having to introduce (not one but) two additional intrinsic fudge factors of an unknown nature and unknown magnitude.
Did you even read the reasoning given for those "fudge factors"? In these drives, the "Mach effect" is supposedly being accessed indirectly by dynamic manipulation of materials via electromagnetic fields, the effectiveness of which necessarily depends on their properties (as well as on the precision of the resonance matching in the system, and the efficiency of the EM equipment in providing a clean signal). Your argument is a non sequitur.
How is Buldrini's fudge factor different than the introduction of the Hubble constant?It differs in that
If the rest of the universe determines the inertial frames, it follows that inertia is not an intrinsic property of matter, but arises as a result of the interaction of matter with the rest of the matter in the universe.
Woodward's theory (in his book) on the "propellantless" propulsion claims it needs both simultaneuously the EM flux (delta E) and the changing acceleration of the mass (delta a). In Brito's experiment I see where the Delta E is coming from but what is providing the delta a?
Or was this an unjustified modification to his theory Woodward proposed after Brito's nullification experiment?
<<The observed negative results for [Brito's EM drive] activation in non-modulated power mode, imply that the following theoretical approaches are wholly or partially falsified: Transient mass fluctuation, Thrust predicted according to Woodward’s formulation is around 3.4 mN, thus according to the results reported here no Mach induced mass fluctuation is taking place up to the sensitivity of the experimental apparatus.>>
The theory of the Mach effect thruster (MET) has been written in great detail elsewhere...
[1] H. Fearn & J. F. Woodward, “Recent Results of an Investigation of Mach Effects Thrusters”, Joint Propulsion Conference 2012 to be published in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
[2] J. F. Woodward “Making Starships and Stargates” Springer 2013.
Evidently, the simplest Mach effect depends on the square of the acceleration of the body in which it is produced.
To start with, we wish to show that the stack (called N4) is capable of producing a linear thrust. The production of thrust depends on combining a periodic force on an object undergoing periodic mass fluctuations at the frequency of the fluctuations. You also require the appropriate phase so that the force on the object in one part of each cycle is different from that in another part of the cycle.
(We should really multiply by a factor of 4 pi to allow for SI units but as you will see this will still lead to an underestimate.)
Steiner-Martins give 3.2 x10-10 mV-1 for the “d33” piezoelectric constant for the SM-111 material. That is the value of Kp. They list no value for the electrostrictive constant. But electrostrictive effects are generally smaller than piezoelectric effects [3-5]. Using the value for Kp we find
|F|= 191.4 K sub e (12)
(I used the pipe character because of HTML character conflict)
From the power spectrum we can estimate that the electrostrictive constant must be somewhere between 1/6th and 1/10th of the piezoelectric constant. If we take the electrostrictive constant to be 1/8th of the piezoelectric constant, or approximately 4 x 10-11 mV-2, we find that a thrust on the order of 8 nN is predicted. We should in fact multiply by 4π to allow for the SI units, but the observed thrust for these parameters is a couple of microNewtons.
... the condition that the capacitor restmass vary in time is met as the ions in the lattice are accelerated by the changing external electric field.
Some of this energy is likely stored in the gravitational field...
The power amplifier employed was a Carvin DCM 1000 operating in bridged mode.
Take a look at my subsequent comment:
<<But, if electrons are emitted by field emission from a dielectric-resonator experiencing breakdown under the electric field, what happens to the electrons in the air? Is the air also ionized by the electric field? How could that generate propulsion, unless we have a leaky microwave cavity ?>>
These are my malformed , incomplete, thoughts in "poking around" looking for different explanations of the measurements.
If the propulsion is the result of ionized air leaking from the cavity, I see this as much less effective than present ion rockets. Also take into account that they tested thrust pulses for only ~30 sec duration and that would not get us anywhere. A cracked dielectric resonator emitting electrons and/or ionization of air won't work long enough or effectively enough...
Also as far as specific force, the results from the Cannae and Frustum testing were not too encouraging. The Boeing/DARPA specific force tests show an impulse instead of a rectangular pulse. The trips to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are predicated on very optimistic extrapolations...
Take a look at my subsequent comment:
<<But, if electrons are emitted by field emission from a dielectric-resonator experiencing breakdown under the electric field, what happens to the electrons in the air? Is the air also ionized by the electric field? How could that generate propulsion, unless we have a leaky microwave cavity ?>>
These are my malformed , incomplete, thoughts in "poking around" looking for different explanations of the measurements.
If the propulsion is the result of ionized air leaking from the cavity, I see this as much less effective than present ion rockets. Also take into account that they tested thrust pulses for only ~30 sec duration and that would not get us anywhere. A cracked dielectric resonator emitting electrons and/or ionization of air won't work long enough or effectively enough...
Also as far as specific force, the results from the Cannae and Frustum testing were not too encouraging. The Boeing/DARPA specific force tests show an impulse instead of a rectangular pulse. The trips to the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are predicated on very optimistic extrapolations...
Problem is, I thought that they'd also tested it in a vacume chamber as well and still got positive results.
I may be a bit confused on this one as it seems that I've heard both that they WERE going to test it in a Vacume Chamber and that they HAD tested it in a vacume chamber.
If they haven't yet tested it in a vacume, then your "Ion Wind" theory is possible, but if they have, again, some other mechanism must be at work.
Could someone clear this one up for me, have they or haven't they tested in a vacume chamber and if not, why? It shouldn't be too hard to set up and experiment like this in a vacume chamber. (I do remember some discussion about vacume resistant capacitors, but that should have been corrected by now).
Yes well, you'll have to forgive me that I can't read all what Dr. Rodal is posting. It's pretty obvious he is not familiar with the work. Neither was Brito when he decided to do an M-E experiment using a discarded design a year or two after it had been abandoned.Quote from: Rodal* When did such statements first appear in Woodward's publications?
* What magnitude acceleration is a large “bulk” acceleration according to Woodward?
This is almost asking the right question. It is not the magnitude of the bulk that qualifies it as "bulk" but rather, it is accelerating both ends of the electromechanical spring found in bulk matter. The MLT design used by Brito in the above only accelerated the mobile ion inside the BaTiO3 dielectric cage or lattice. What needs to happen is one accelerates the entire lattice because this includes then, both ends of these EM springs. Accelerating only the mobile ion does not accelerate the entire spring.
Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that corrected the efforts in M-E research was back in early 2008 I believe. It was certainly before Brito's experiments. And again, this is why it is so foolish to do replications or validations of anyone's work without availing oneself to the current state of the art. (And really one hopes people wanting to criticize such work ought to be cognizant of the facts as well.)
I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.
There are two very important aspects to the Bulk Acceleration Conjecture. First is, since the entire active mass material lattice needs to move, it can't be sintered with compounds intended to repress electromechanical responses the way the MLT caps used were, and I presume the caps used by Brito. The lattice needs to accelerate and the magnitude of this acceleration determines both the magnitude of the Mach Effect generated (by the 1w acceleration) and the mass fluctuation rectification into force (by the 2w acceleration). So what it turns out is, the thrust generated from these 1/4 wave oscillator/resonators is quadratic with mechanical Q, and Brito's design had no Q to speak of. It was not a 1/4 wave resonator. If you don't use a reaction mass or acoustic mirror in your design, even given the shabby acceleration generated by ceramics sintered to repress piezo-action and electrostriction, you get 1/2 wave mechanical action which means acceleration in two opposite directions which then cancel each other as regards force generated.
So long story short is, the design used by Brito had been abandoned a year or two before he did his experiment for good reasons and ought not have worked according to theory. This has all been explained by me in several forums over the years, and if Dr. Rodal thinks he is qualified to remark about "moving the goalposts" or whatever, I would just suggest to him he do his homework first. He could for example read Jim's book.
reply from GiThruster regarding Brito's experiments posted by Dr Rodal
...He could for example read Jim's book.
reply from GiThruster regarding Brito's experiments posted by Dr RodalQuote... (0) It's pretty obvious [Rodal] is not familiar with the work.Quote from: Rodal* When did such statements first appear in Woodward's publications?
* What magnitude acceleration is a large “bulk” acceleration according to Woodward?
This is almost asking the right question. It is (1) not the magnitude of the bulk that qualifies it as "bulk" but rather, it is accelerating both ends of the electromechanical spring found in bulk matter. ...
There are two very important aspects to the (2) Bulk Acceleration Conjecture. ...
(3) So long story short is, ... [Rodal] could for example read Jim's book.
GiThruster wrote <<I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.>>
If my understanding is correct, GiThruster is referring to the experiments performed by Paul March, reported in this paper: Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman. "The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011, since Paul March refers to his experiments as Mach Lorentz Thruster:
<<This type of electromagnetic field thruster, or Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT), purports to create a transient mass differential that is expressed in a working medium to produce a net thrust in the dielectric material contained in several capacitors.>>
So, if I understand GiThruster correctly, the experiments by Paul March quoted by Dr. White in his slide 40 (in August 2013) of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf :
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2004:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.4 N/kW (up to 90 000 times larger than the photon rocket)
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2005:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.3 N/kW (up to 67 000 times larger than the photon rocket) [/color]
______________________________
have been deemed to be an experimental artifact? as GiThruster states that "they" [meaning Woodward ?] have abandoned this kind of thruster as not being able to produce thrust because the "bulk" is not accelerated?
because <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>
My interpretation of all this is that GiThruster and Woodward think that the kind of MLT drive that Paul March tested in 2004/5 cannot generate sizeable thrust according to the latest interpretation (post 2008? and certainly post-Brito-2009-null experiment) of Woodward. But since Dr. White presented these results of Paul March in his slide 40 (in August 2013) as a Q-thruster, Dr. White thinks that Paul March's MLT thruster can theoretically deliver thrust according to White's Quantum Vacuum theory.
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best. In part, this can be attributed to things like variation in construction details, the quality of components, and the aging of materials operated toward their electrical and mechanical limits. But something more fundamental seems to have been going on.
The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written — in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density — it is easy to lose
sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such a "bulk" acceleration was made. As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and students' experiment made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately excited and the electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention on the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.
By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.
Why not simply join the mailing list? I see no benefit from these intermediates.
Ok, John you've made way too many comments on the related threads here not to have at least followed the claimed story unless it's deliberate. The story is that the 'bulk acceleration' conjecture doesn't impact Woodward's 'source of inertia' theories at all because it's a question of correct method for engineering a 'unidirectional force generator' from the theory, not demonstrating a yeah/nay experiment that 'suggests itself' directly from the maths. ...
Not saying any of that makes this smell legit. But that's the story as I understand it.
As someone who has read Jim's book. I would consider your analysis quoted above to be valid. ...Quote from: Woodward, the Stargate bookBy "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.
Now while I can understand [Rodal's] reluctance to read Dr. Woodwards book. I think this is one particular instance that you should make an exception.
It has now become apparent that:
1) These experiments were not performed at NASA Eagleworks
2) Woodward's explanation for this kind of EM Drive (sometimes called MLT thruster ) has been nullified by the experiments conducted by Brito, Marini and Galian
3) As stated by GiThruster and others, Woodward and his colleagues have abandoned this kind of (MLT) thruster as not being able to produce thrust because <<the "bulk" is not accelerated>>, and Woodward now states that <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>
4) No Woodward MET thruster measurement has been reported to have been ever performed at NASA Eagleworks
5) Although I have never seen an actual numerical value given for what Woodward and his colleagues consider to be a high enough acceleration for in their own words <<the "bulk" to be accelerated>>, it appears from the context of publications that the drives (SFE Boeing/DARPA, Cannae and Frustum) tested by Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks, did not meet the <<"bulk" accelerated>> requirement by Woodward and therefore cannot be explained by Woodward's theory as presently stated.
...Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
You're asking the wrong guy. You want to ask Paul. But yes. Sonny and Paul have had a dog in this hunt since way back before there was an Eagleworks. They built a Shawyer resonator years before--which is what the tapered cavity resonator is. They did this because like with the MLT, Sonny claims his QVF conjecture explains thrust from the tapered cavity resonator. I'm sure he says the same about the Cannae device.
Now, according to your understanding of the requirement of <<bulk acceleration>>, do these tests qualify as having imparted a <<bulk acceleration>> as per Woodward's theory, yes or not?I can't answer this because I'm not familiar enough with the experiment. Certainly it is possible that this is a sloppily designed MET, meaning M-E theory would explain thrust from such a thing, but I don't know because for instance, I don't know in what manner that dielectric would accelerate.
No, the MLT experiments cited by Dr. White were performed years before there was an Eagleworks and before Dr. White had even formed his QVF conjecture. The experiments were with AC, and at the time it was thought the design would generate thrust according to M-E theory.
Explanations are never nullified. They can be falsified.
Try to understand at least a little of how these devices are proposed to work if you want to critique that work.
As I have already explained, "bulk" acceleration is not a reference to a magnitude of acceleration in the ceramic. It is a reference to the entire lattice needing to accelerate rather than just the mobile ion. Here is an image of a typical perovskite structure:
In order to accelerate the entire lattice in one direction to generate M-E and thrust, you need to use a dielectric that does not include a mechanical attenuator.
You also need a reaction mass for the lattice to press against...
Obviously there would be no point publishing about old work that he knows did not provide the proper scientific controls to be taken seriously.
I'm just not familiar enough with the experimental setup to say.
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.
Thanks for the Slepian. When my poor old brain integrates around an entire system I get zero.
The next term would be the interatomic nuclear force ? (cold fusion anyone ?)
Almost forgot, the 1 wavelength "coffee can resonator" at the earths surface has an interaction wavelength of 10^10 meters.
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.That's not why the dielectric is in there. All of the cavity resonators are 1/2 wave EM resonators. You're confusing EM resonance and acoustic resonance. For an M-E device to operate, there needs to be a 1/4 wave acoustic resonance; meaning the ceramic is displacing in one direction only, not in two opposite directions, or at the very least the displacement cannot be equal and opposite as this would generate zero thrust.
This is semantic gobbledeegook. The explanation you have offered contains no math.No. This is the kind of precision with which real scientists ought to communicate. If you want the math John, go read the papers. Didn't we go thorough all this 5 years ago? Have you still not read the papers? It is not my place to educate you. If you don't understand how these devices are supposed to work, you can read up on them. Surely, criticizing work you don't understand is a fool's errand.
It would be most helpful if there were math associated with the proposal of how the device works, specifically a mathematical and physical definition of "bulk acceleration".The math is in the book, and in the papers that have been published on this subject every year for about 2 decades now. You can read them at your leisure. Let us however not pretend you would understand the math as you have no training in GR. Unless things have changed these last few years John? Did you go back to school?
What is the mass of the illustrated PZT structure on the wiki page? Is it the same as the proposed lattice structure?Yes. When people speak of the "lattice" they are speaking of the entire crystal in contrast to the mobile ion. So for example, if you are talking about a single crystal form, the mass of the dielectric is the mass of the lattice. If however you are speaking of a sintered form, the mass of the lattice could be appreciably less given any sintering agent is introduced, such as what is commonly included to attenuate electromechanical responses. Not all sintered ceramics require a sintering agent, however. Ceramics sintered with Spark Plasma sintering or FAST system, do not require binders, etc, and so the "lattice" mass would be the same as the ceramic mass. In this instance however, things like PZT that are tape cast, or other forms of PZT like what Woodward was most recently using, include binders the percentage of which are not specified by the manufacturer.
What is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?This is different with every experiment. IMHO, the proper way to know the answer to this, and it is a good question; is to use a high speed laser doppler vibrometer. Other methods are far less precise. Future experiments will use this method if I have anything to say about it. It is fair to say however, that in general the accelerations generated in perovskites operating in the ultrasonic region, where the design provides a typical mechanical Q of about 700, are in the millions of gees. The trouble is that the device also needs to oscillate at a second frequency which is not on the natural resonace of the device, and that oscillation will be tiny if not managed extremely well. In order to know if it has been managed well, one needs a vibrometer. Woodward tracks his accelerations with accelerometers but he cannot assign raw magnitudes to them in this way.
How much electrical power goes into the lattice?In the case of Woodward's current thruster experiments, about 100 watts, and less than one watt is dissipated. But you cannot infer what you suppose from this answer as there are a handful of complex qualifications I would offer were we having a technical discussion of something you understood sufficiently. Fact is you have not asked the right question and you cannot understand the right answer either.
The rest of the universe has been suggested, but this is not backed by any theory, and not included in your explanation.You're mixing up two different issues. While it is true that the gravinertial flux in and out of the thruster is exchanged with the rest of the universe (and this has always been M-E theory--read the book or any of the papers published the last 20 years), in order for any 1/4 wave resonator or oscillator to function, it needs to push off a reaction mass or acoustic mirror. Whether one creates conditions for a Mach Effect event or not, any 1/4 wave acoustic resonator requires this. Now if one has such a resonator and then wants to generate M-E, one gets the changing mass from gravinertial flux exchange with the rest of the universe. Different issue. Again, you are mixing these issues because you're trying to analyze the operation of a device which you do not understand. Read the book.
Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. Dr. Woodward routinely addresses concerns like these in all his work, which is one reason he has more than 100 scientists and engineers on his weekly mailing list. I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.
The discussion about lattices and attenuators is only an exercise in liguistic meaning.Don't make the mistake thinking that just because you don't understand what I said, that Dr. Rodal does not either. I explained in great detail for real reasons and none of that explanation was mere exercise. You simply don't understand it, which is fine. Read the book.
Why are you arguing so strenuously on a topic that you are not "familiar enough" with?I'm not arguing. I'm explaining. You're arguing. Eagle has been as transparent as is normally the case when offering a conference paper. I'm just answering Dr. Rodal that I cannot tell whether the dielectric is moving in 1/4 wave acoustic fashion from the paper. It is quite possible. Since both the resonator geometries are asymmetric, 1/4 wave motion of whatever is in there is quite plausible.
You are mistaken and/or confused with something else. Nobody has addressed the issues I have raised concerning parasitic self-excitation of the inverted pendulum due to coupling of swinging with the torsional mode, and the nonlinear nature of the magnetic damping term in the equations of motion. Furthermore concerning your opinion that "doubt whether anyone is going to find fault " with the experimental setup, Paul March has already stated in this forum that they are trying to address the problems with the magnetic damping (already admitted in the NASA "Anomalous.." paper) with a "2nd generation" design for the magnetic damper.QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.
You are mistaken and/or confused with something else. Nobody has addressed the issues I have raised concerning parasitic self-excitation of the inverted pendulum due to coupling of swinging with the torsional mode, and the nonlinear nature of the magnetic damping term in the equations of motion. ...QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.
...QuoteWhat is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?This is different with every experiment. IMHO, the proper way to know the answer to this, and it is a good question; is to use a high speed laser doppler vibrometer. Other methods are far less precise. Future experiments will use this method if I have anything to say about it. It is fair to say however, that in general the accelerations generated in perovskites operating in the ultrasonic region, where the design provides a typical mechanical Q of about 700, are in the millions of gees. The trouble is that the device also needs to oscillate at a second frequency which is not on the natural resonace of the device, and that oscillation will be tiny if not managed extremely well. In order to know if it has been managed well, one needs a vibrometer. Woodward tracks his accelerations with accelerometers but he cannot assign raw magnitudes to them in this way.
...
...QuoteHow much electrical power goes into the lattice?In the case of Woodward's current thruster experiments, about 100 watts, and less than one watt is dissipated. But you cannot infer what you suppose from this answer as there are a handful of complex qualifications I would offer were we having a technical discussion of something you understood sufficiently. Fact is you have not asked the right question and you cannot understand the right answer either.
...
Sorry going to have to call a flag on the play their Rodal. What your saying is only half correct. Paul March did address the issues you initially raised (that is the open letter you wrote that aceshigh reproduced on talk polywell). And I do not think it is too much to assume that Ron is referring to that part of this long discussion.
On one hand you state that you are << just not familiar enough with the experimental setup>> used by Eagleworks for their "Anomalous.." paper and on the other hand you make this blanket, predictive, statement about <<doubt whether anyone is going to find fault>>.Yes well, I've been doing this for a decade now. Every engineering forum is filled with people who suppose they are going to find what they assert must be there--some kind of flaw in the test system. In every one of these forums, there are engineers who presume there must be an error in the system, because they are unable to understand the operation of the device in question and know whether it ought to operate as proposed or not. So you're in the majority, Dr. Rodal. I would just note to you though, that Woodward's general reading list has guys with PhD's from Cambridge and Penn State and these are not simpleton types. They're all doing what you're proposing to do, but with real time invested to understand the systems. The question is really, are you going to take the time to understand?
[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?Jim should just be back from vacation about now. He just started posting to his reading list but nothing about the new test items yet. It will be an exciting season since he finally will have some PMN on the balance--something I've been after him for since 2007. It's dicy stuff since it has such a tiny thermal bandwidth of operation, but it also can have much improved stats over the PZT the last few years.
I didn't read back at your specific concern, but it sounds like it is dealt with quite ably when using a dummy load on the balance.
Quote[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?Jim should just be back from vacation about now. He just started posting to his reading list but nothing about the new test items yet. It will be an exciting season since he finally will have some PMN on the balance--something I've been after him for since 2007. It's dicy stuff since it has such a tiny thermal bandwidth of operation, but it also can have much improved stats over the PZT the last few years.
Heidi Fern has already committed to pursue Jim's work when he is unable. She's that convinced Jim is right in both theory and practice.
Does this merit a bottle of Scotch? John, when you wrote <<Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing >>: the issues I raised are endemic, and known, with inverted pendulums and magnetic dampening. They are not due to scientific controls. The alternatives I proposed are.
Hope that helps. And yeah, you should read the book. There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile. Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. ...I agree, that is my reaction as of late, with many exceptions. Notably, Paul March (@Star-Drive), addressing a number of points with numbers and data. Unfortunately he stopped frequenting this forum some time ago. But I truly appreciate all of the responses I have seen from Paul March. He is truly missed.
Hope that helps. And yeah, you should read the book. There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile. Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
What strikes me here, as someone trained in down to earth engineering but also interested in fundamental research, is that what appears (from an average mainstream science educated person) we have people applying more of engineering methodology, trying to find some variants and to improve a useful device, while the "simple" experimental evidence for any effect at all (regardless of backing theories) is obscured by this apparently endless series of various devices/various experimental setups, to the point it seems utterly unable to convince mainstream scientists of the reality of a possible experimental positive result (regardless of backing mainstream theories). If dr Woodward et al are interested in a Nobel, my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists : please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds : even if only a few % better than 1/c would be enough for a Nobel. If some theory did prove to be useful to reach the appropriate design then all the better for the Nobel, but theories can come later.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. Maybe that is not their goal, maybe they prefer to nurture scepticism and keep working in their corner, with little funds and equipments and small teams, polishing a design to truly amaze us later with a whooping N/kW thruster for all to buy at RadioShack ? But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens (to be compensated for perspective! can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?) (and believe our word, this is just so typical a record it would be useless to show you the others...) scatterplots of hundreds of data points (on/off pulses) with varying parameters (positioning, frequency, power, time of the day, temperature and humidity in lab, with or without added ferromagnetic shielding here and there, with or without thermal shielding of the flex bearings...) to show correlations or absence of correlation...
I understand the limited means for small teams small budgets, but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking. NDAs are a no go for fundamental science and a poor excuse considered what is at stakes : BSM physics. What are the general feeling in the proponents ranks about the lack of recognition by the mainstream community so far ? They just don't care ?
Understand this is not an attack on persons, it is an attack on methodology. I have no secret agenda, I have no financial or professional interest in propellentless drives to fail to reach recognition, should they be possible at all. I do have an interest in scientific knowledge and good methodology, and communication to the general public.
...@birchoff
I agree with what you are saying, but I think there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it. As someone who is interested in seeing this line of research carried out, my perspective is that we are really just at the beginning, where the researchers have a hypothesis and are carrying out experiments to attempt to prove those hypotheses. In Eagleworks case they think they can push on the quantum vaccum and are carrying out tests according to their idea to see if it actually can be done. While Dr. Woodward believes it should be possible to temporarily shield some matter from the effects of all the matter in the universe in just such a way to be able to coax thrust out of it. Both ideas on their face are extraordinary. But thats all they are right now. It is my perspective that Eagle works is trying to get to the point that they can provide someone with a description that can be independently verify. They just dont have that right now. As for Woodward In his book the reason he has moved from his classical MET design to MLT and back to MET is because he was unable to get a consistent thrust signal after having his designs tested in more than one way.
I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing.An excellent summary.
Progress in instrumentation is still important progress.
In 2012 a researcher attempting to characterize the Woodward effect, another proposed reactionless drive effect, has stated that she carefully designed her experiments to specifically exclude any "Dean drive" effects: the unintended interaction with the environment in, around or touching the apparatus. She considered these effects "spurious noise".It appears to me some people are spending a lot of energy at improving spurious effects as if it were a progress toward a real effect. As for the later, considering the real effect is impossible and there is therefore no real part to be distinguished from spurious noise, improving signal magnitude is no progress at all. The null results of experiments by Brito/Marini/Galian are a progress. Not because the result is null and I would want standard physics to win, but because it appears as a clean result (within the sensitivity...). Obviously if you were to produce an apparently clean positive it would be under much more scrutiny and attacks than a null result...
(how is it possible to include a video directly inside the post ?)
Progress in publishing ?You noticed (at the end of the demonstration) that the presenter was holding for the audience an Antigravity Propulsion book.
Does this merit a bottle of Scotch? John, when you wrote <<Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing >>: the issues I raised are endemic, and known, with inverted pendulums and magnetic dampening. They are not due to scientific controls.
... but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking.
...there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it.
I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing. ... If effect is impossible, any progress is illusory.
Progress in publishing ?You noticed (at the end of the demonstration) that the presenter was holding for the audience an Antigravity Propulsion book.
I was interpreting "scientific controls" with emphasis on "controls" and "scientific" just being a modifier. I wanted to emphasize that what I am questioning is not anything to do with automatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_control or human control http://www.bartlett.psychol.cam.ac.uk/human%20control%20systems.html of the experimental setup. One of the responders seems to have addressed this as finding "fault" with the experimenter in having made some mistake during the experiments, which is not at all what I question. What I questioned is the use of a magnetically damped inverted pendulum because it is subject to self-excitation and mode coupling of swinging with torsional modes.
Maybe run this thru yer grammar checker, kemosabe? I am using the term "scientific controls" in its plain English sense, which in this case, may not include the stricter scientific sense that you might be referring to. Here's what I think you are saying:
The "endemic issues" of inverted pendulums, which include magnetic damping and such should not be confused with "scientific controls" pertaining to differentiating null results from detected results. I just lumped the endemic issues into the subject of scientific controls.
Howzabout sharing your definition of "scientific controls"?
...there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it.
...
Having said that, I see that Wikipedia has a different view of the meaning of "scientific controls" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control as <<an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the single independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. >>, so yes, kernosabe, according to this definition, your use of "scientific control" was well utilized.
...there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it.
What say you to those two devices?
Progress in publishing ?You noticed (at the end of the demonstration) that the presenter was holding for the audience an Antigravity Propulsion book.
Well, of course they're going to try and sell the book.
If we can tentatively accept that the stage floor is the "scientifically controlled" equivalent of the conference room table, what made that device hover?
The whirly bird thing was converting electrically caused rotary action into forward momentum. He needs to tighten up the mechanism, since it would be a bumpy ride, but it looks like it works.
What say you to those two devices?
One of the responders seems to have addressed this as finding "fault" with the experimenter in having made some mistake during the experiments, which is not at all what I question.
The whirly bird thing was converting electrically caused rotary action into forward momentum. He needs to tighten up the mechanism, since it would be a bumpy ride, but it looks like it works.
For the second device I suspect "Dean drive" effect (observe the frictional stick-slip and jumping in the tracks) plus the (unconscious guiding) influence of the cables held by the person.
In the ionic wind device, one would be able to feel the "breeze", then.http://alternative-medicine.knoji.com/how-ions-affect-your-mood/
It does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.
Why couldn't this be done?
It does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.
Why couldn't this be done?
It does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.
Why couldn't this be done?
Think of how you move your body to roller skate.
Look at the critter wind-up toy motion for the rest of the story.It does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.
Why couldn't this be done?
Think of how you move your body to roller skate.
Ima good skater on ice and roller blades. The secret is pushing on your blade at right angles to its axis, so that you don't roll or slide. That's the friction. Which you know. As an aside, one of the things I still can't really do is jump into a right angled dramatic brake in either medium.
Unless the wheels of the whirly bird device were frictionally directional, it appears to move forward without canting its wheels along their vertical axis, and developing friction in the same way as ice skating or roller blading.
I have recently noticed that this type of effect appears to go back to the 1920's, at least:
<<During the 1920s, Thomas Townsend Brown was experimenting with an x-ray tube known as a "Coolidge tube," which was invented in 1913 by the American physical chemist William D. Coolidge. Brown found that the Coolidge tube exhibited a net force (a thrust) when it was turned on.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. ...I agree, that is my reaction as of late, with many exceptions. Notably, Paul March
....
I was given this windup toy by a Swiss friend ...
An Italian:
The frictional rolling of a driven wheel against a surface always comprises a "stick" region at the leading side of rolling motion and a sliding region behind it.
where the motion is ... due to self-excitation.
Well, if you are going to argue that the analogies I presented are not perfect analogies, I concede that specific point: you are right: they are not perfect analogies. However they contain the essential points: stick-slip friction and motion of the center of gravity.I was given this windup toy by a Swiss friend ...
Yahbut: This has nothing to do, that I can tell, with the whirly bird device. ....
It´s a bit unfair of Frobnicat to demand specific answers from us that only a few people WORKING on those experiments can effectively give, and then say we are not helping the cause.
Well, if you are going to argue that the analogies I presented are not perfect analogies, I concede that point: ...I was given this windup toy by a Swiss friend ...
Yahbut: This has nothing to do, that I can tell, with the whirly bird device. ....
Exsqeeze me on my ineptitude, but I am not following. We're talking about a wheel. Break it down for me, willya?The wheel has a (leading) stick zone and (following) sliding zone.
I think I see.
I can get on a railroad flat car, and jerk backwards. The car will move forward. If I coast with it, gradually bringing my body forward at a rate of less than the "sticky friction", I will get to a point where I can jerk backwards again, and I can thus "propel" the railroad flat car forward.
Is this correct?
I think I see.
I can get on a railroad flat car, and jerk backwards. The car will move forward. If I coast with it, gradually bringing my body forward at a rate of less than the "sticky friction", I will get to a point where I can jerk backwards again, and I can thus "propel" the railroad flat car forward.
Is this correct?
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. ...I agree, that is my reaction as of late, with many exceptions. Notably, Paul March
coincidentally, the only one who posts here who directly works on propellantless propulsion and the only one who can address the questions raised. I wonder how Frobnicat expects propellantless propulsion proponents here to answer the questions raised when only people directly working with those experiments can answer such questions.
It´s a bit unfair of Frobnicat to demand specific answers from us that only a few people WORKING on those experiments can effectively give, and then say we are not helping the cause.
Expressing views: beware of borderline methodology, we (sceptics) beg you (enthusiasts) not to dive into black science, for your own sake.
http://www.nerdcoremovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Black-Science-1-6.jpg
...
3) I have brought this up before, but...could 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' be at play here? .explanations?
...
But that is enough to make extremely long wavelength "dark matter" particles, always assuming they exist of course.
Esp in a 2-photon interaction.
Edit : still need a non-linear GR term.
Esp in a 2-photon interaction.
Edit : still need a non-linear GR term.
(I know I'm crossing GR and StdM here but that's what has to happen for EM to do anything)
Still looking, but hints would be things like tapered cavities and asymmetric dielectrics which would add dispersion to the cavity photons, hence the nonlinear term. (you'll be the first to know if I find something while digging)
Not as long as you keep asking for electron/positron pairs (real), not gonna happen.
Same problem w/ creating "Plank drops" if they were to exist, way to much energy.
If the effect is real you need a large momentum to energy ratio so c is way too big but a plank mass would be nice if you could couple to it.
Leaving now, but I may have to think about the water drop analogy. The nonlinearity (in the dispersion curve) is present before the drop "breaks" (is created ?)
dark matter ?
Ok, this is preliminary and difficult. But, regardless of theories, they claim results, they claim difficult to obtain and measure but real non classical effects. Sceptic but open minded readership is not requiring cautionary phrase "assuming any propellantless effect at all is possible" at each single slide or paragraph of the publications, but the overall tone is that they have no doubt they are onto something, and trying to improve that something. But there is nothing to improve if there is nothing, and it is very possible there is nothing, that propellantless effects (better than 1/c) is not part of reality, like FTL travels. It would be very desirable but it could be just plain impossible. No matter bright theories to explain how it could be possible, and it is certainly worth investigating such possibilities, in the end it might be just plain impossible. And that is what best contemporary theories and their theoreticians are telling. They could be wrong. They very possibly could be right, even if wrong on a lot of other things.
If all the signals are false, then there is no progress to be made by comparing the signals. For instance it is irrelevant to make a theory that better explains why a thruster could better push on vacuum with a dielectric resonator than without, it is irrelevant to make devices with dielectric resonators because seeing a signal would be better than no signal. I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing.
There is the device and the experiment to test the device. As for the experimental part there is a force measuring system and an enclosure around the device to insure the device is isolated from the rest of the experiment and can't expel anything or push on any wall or field. Working in a vacuum is a kind of enclosure, but it is far from sufficient. If any effect at all is possible then this enclosure is irrelevant for applications. For determining the all or nothing answer of "is the effect real ?" this enclosure is paramount. The experimenters and theoreticians here seem to put so much accent on the device, some real effort on the force measuring (but maybe not the appropriate apparatus), but not much about the enclosure.
Pierre Sikivie [in 1983] showed that dark matter axions can be detected on Earth by converting them to microwave photons in an electromagnetic cavity tuned to the axion mass and permeated by a strong magnetic field. This is the principle of the Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) at the University of Washington in Seattle. It uses a resonant microwave cavity within in a large superconducting magnet to search for cold dark matter axions in the local galactic dark matter halo
http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/admx/home.html
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~tanner/PDFS/Hoskins11prd-Hires-10Hz.pdf
<<We describe the ADMX receiver in detail as well as the analysis of narrow band microwave signals. We demonstrate the sustained use of a SQUID amplifier operating between 812 and 860 MHz with a noise temperature of 1 K. The receiver has a noise equivalent power of View the MathML source in the band of operation for an integration time of View the MathML source.>>
<<ADMX converts axions to detectable microwave photons via the inverse Primakoff effect within a tunable,
high quality factor (Q ~ 50000) microwave cavity immersed in a strong magnetic field.>>
<<The ADMX detector consists of a 1-m tall, 0.5-m diameter, copper plated, stainless steel, right cylindrical
cavity kept at 1.8 K and placed in a 7.6 T magnetic field>>
We are missing the 7.6 T strong magnetic field in the Eagleworks experiment. The only magnetic field is the one produced by the magnetic damper, which is there only by chance (mainly to dampen the swinging oscillations of the inverted pendulum and also the torsional oscillations). The magnetic damper is located about a foot away from the tested microwave device (Cannae or Frustum).
Eagleworks has three Neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets interacting with the pendulum’s aluminum angle to dampen oscillatory motion.
For comparison, the magnetic field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet is 1.25 T
dark matter?
The interaction would be the other way around, photon interaction...
Can't answer your question, they run at twice the frequency required, less than half the Q at Washington, and the main problem is that the magnetic field was there only by chance and far away (a foot from the tested device).
As far-fetched as this would be, sounds certainly much more possible than pumping the Quantum Vacuum...
Quote
The interaction would be the other way around, photon interaction...
Ok, so microwave photons are creating (?) dark matter axioms? (trying for clarity here, though this sounds a little like my earlier speculation)Quote
Can't answer your question, they run at twice the frequency required, less than half the Q at Washington, and the main problem is that the magnetic field was there only by chance and far away (a foot from the tested device).
As far-fetched as this would be, sounds certainly much more possible than pumping the Quantum Vacuum...
Assume that by sheer chance if nothing else, the drive built and tested by the Eagleworks team is 'using microwave photons to create dark matter axioms,' which seems at least plausible as everything connected with dark matter has giant question marks attached. If this is the case, then in your best view, would this qualify as a 'propellentless drive' or 'EM drive?' And would we be in serious violation of the laws of physics here?
But but but, if those thrust levels are false, I mean not about any backing theory but by the most basic experimental criteria : thrust/power > 1/c with no loss of mass (beyond the mass equivalence of energy involved) and not directly or indirectly pushing on a nearby ground. Those are exactly the conditions of applicability of the effect for space propulsion (and cheap energy generation BTW). This is the extraordinary experimental claim. I insist on the experimental aspect of it : possible backing theories are interesting, but need not be considered to discuss the practical implications of such experimental result, nor the methodology to ascertain the reality of the results (that is, it fulfils the above criteria). So for commodity what I call a false effect is a thrust or force that is not fulfilling those requirements, while a true effect does.
Ok, this is preliminary and difficult...
.../...
If all the signals are false, then there is no progress to be made by comparing the signals...
This is now several pages back but didn't want to leave it unchallenged -- frobnicat, it's not a detour for Eagleworks or Woodward to be focusing, decades into their separate work, building thrust levels as a primary focus compared to eliminating spurious, conventional sources of potential thrust. The fact is, the effort to eliminate spurious sources can go on forever if you are pumping hundreds of watts into a box and measuring micronewtons at a small distance above the noise threshold. In Woodward's case it's been over I believe 17 years of experiments.
The one thing that changes the dynamic is if you can increase the thrust/power to the level where spurious sources of thrust are differentiated by the power level. The larger the thrust being measured, the easier it is to figure out the source.
So even if the theory is wrong, after so many years of chasing something uncertain, and if you're convinced either by the underlying theory or previous results, surely it makes sense to keep trying to increase the thrust while only slowly chipping away at the spurious potential sources.
@frobnicat
S1/ Coupling a local RF field with existing axions that just happen to be there : pushing on the local dark matter. Since this matter is real but not interacting there is 0 chance that the average velocity of this "dark gas" is synchronised with rotating earth surface or even with earth centre of mass on its orbit around the sun. It is possible that this dark average velocity is in the same direction and grossly similar magnitude as solar system (sun) velocity orbiting the galaxy, but unknown for sure. What is certain is that in such a situation (coupling with existing dark matter) the device in a lab would see a strong relative wind of magnitude at least 30km/s (and possibly up to a few 100s km/s) with direction and exact magnitude depending of orientation to the stars (periodicity of 23 hours, 56 minutes sidereal time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time) and day of the year (earth velocity on orbit around sun, relative to galactic referential). Will try to do some order of magnitude roughing to develop quantitatively this situation. Dr Rodal do you know of any attempt in the literature to characterize sidereal or year time periodicity of the various thrusters results ? That could explain why the results (if real) appear to be erratic...
.../...
It would need to act more like a sailboat using its sail to go forward with the wind blowing at an angle against it.
.../...
If we cannot come up with something in the EM drive that would be forming an airfoil shape, or if we don't conclude that Dark Matter is a directionless wind and the EM drive works by pumping the Dark Matter (as proposed by Dr White for the vacuum) then this possibility has to be discarded since it is nullified by the experiment.
.../...
.../...
It would need to act more like a sailboat using its sail to go forward with the wind blowing at an angle against it.
.../...
If we cannot come up with something in the EM drive that would be forming an airfoil shape, or if we don't conclude that Dark Matter is a directionless wind and the EM drive works by pumping the Dark Matter (as proposed by Dr White for the vacuum) then this possibility has to be discarded since it is nullified by the experiment.
.../...
A sail is a passive momentum exchange device : no input power from the ship. When considering a powered device the analogy would be more like a propeller : take the medium at a certain velocity vector and blow it on another velocity vector (magnitude and or direction). Some incoming relative speed wind effect could be smaller than the net thrust if exhaust speed is much higher. 20 km/h relative wind, forward or backward, relative to 400 km/h exhaust, would make only 10% difference. The reported thrust measurements (in "anomalous thrusts..." for instance) show some amount of disparity that could accommodate for this explanation up to a certain ratio... and indeed the ratio could be much lower as to be difficult to see at all. A scatterplot of enough data points, with magnitude against sidereal time could show such effect down to a certain threshold.
Quantitatively, the fact that direction reversal of thruster reverses thrust while keep roughly same magnitude (within what, 10% ?) would imply that the exhaust velocity of dark matter would be about 10 times higher than "dark matter wind" which in all likelihood is a least on the order of 30km/s -> more than 300km/s exhaust velocity. Got to check if it makes sense energetically. Also got to check if there is enough dark matter density to push onto. Quick search : this paper (http://inspirehep.net/record/878672/files/arXiv%3A1011.6323.pdf) states about 1GeV/cm3. That sounds like not much. But no time to make quantitative argument right know, probably no posting for the next 48H.
Point is : " the effort to eliminate spurious sources can go on forever"
If "my" theory is correct (true effect is impossible) : the thrust is spurious, trying to augment it is trying to augment a spurious effect. At some point it could appear clearly as spurious because it was augmented. Ok, I give you that. But it is also possible that in this antagonistic interplay between lowering the effects one recognize as spurious and augmenting the effects believed to be true (still spurious, but not recognized as such), and changing constantly from set-ups, devices, experimental conditions... one is just keeping on the level of confusion needed to maintain an illusion of true effect and progress when there is none.
... if it is possible, the methodology appears far from fundamental research standards
This is all or nothing, hit or miss, and when missing there is no indication by how far. And there may be no target at all, be open for that.
A sail is a passive momentum exchange device ...
Well the propeller also has an airfoil shape...
Guys,
Is it possible, that this device is somhow acting like and eductor type of device causing electrons to interact with dark matter, not so much as to push off from it, but to pull it along with itimparting more of a physical thrust?
I imagine that there would be a fall off of effective kinetic energy from the electron stream produced as it interacts with the far heavier Dark Matter, but the overall effect may be sufficent to cause the observed effects.
I'm probably completely off base, but, it makes a whole lot more sense that "pushing off of Dark Matter"
A sail is a passive momentum exchange device ...
Well the propeller also has an airfoil shape...
To continue with this line of reasoning over the next 48 Hamsters, consider making your "propellor" out of a magnetically induced force field.
I want to believe in the ether.
I want to believe in the ether.
Hey kernosabe, I came up with some numbers here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263849#msg1263849
Please give us your numbers for your ether magnetically induced force field :)
You also get 48 Hamster-Hours to provide those numbers. If you do you get a drink.
I want to believe in the ether.
Hey kernosabe, I came up with some numbers here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263849#msg1263849
Please give us your numbers for your ether magnetically induced force field :)
You also get 48 Hamster-Hours to provide those numbers. If you do you get a drink.
Ok. How about Numbers 6:24-26?
Sadly, you ask for that which I cannot provide. I want to believe in the ether, but it is not a fundamental need for me. I guess it is my intuition which suggests that information can travel instantaneously, and also that there ought to be an instantaneous explanation for inertia.
The mental image of a spaceship using an "invisible" propeller shaped force field pushing against the "invisible" ether is an intriguing one for me.
You had mentioned considering a 24 hour fluctuation in the "Force" as a means of determining the direction of the "inertial wind". Might I also throw out this paper, regarding the idea that there is change in the gravitational constant?
What is the nature of the liquid drink that you suggest?
Oh, and the drink is a Martini.
Oh, and the drink is a Martini.
Huh. Shaken or stirred?
There's also this paper:
Being unable to build a consistent and reproducible experiment in 17 years is completely compatible with "no true effect is possible" or "true effect is possible but were never encountered yet", and less and less compatible with "some true effect was witnessed at some point". Regardless of priors and theories.
Ok, so you accept the main point I made. Good. Sure took a lot of words to say that though.QuoteThe one thing that changes the dynamic is if you can increase the thrust/power to the level where spurious sources of thrust are differentiated by the power level. The larger the thrust being measured, the easier it is to figure out the source.
So even if the theory is wrong, after so many years of chasing something uncertain, and if you're convinced either by the underlying theory or previous results, surely it makes sense to keep trying to increase the thrust while only slowly chipping away at the spurious potential sources.
If "my" theory is correct (true effect is impossible) : the thrust is spurious, trying to augment it is trying to augment a spurious effect. At some point it could appear clearly as spurious because it was augmented. Ok, I give you that.
But it is also possible that in this antagonistic interplay between lowering the effects one recognize as spurious and augmenting the effects believed to be true (still spurious, but not recognized as such), and changing constantly from set-ups, devices, experimental conditions... one is just keeping on the level of confusion needed to maintain an illusion of true effect and progress when there is none.
So even if augmenting the thrust could be a way to find and understand it as a spurious effect (real progress) my take is that it is not the best way. Focus should be on a good appropriate balance and isolating the device, first, like Brito et al. Then if you have a positive result, this is a clean result, apply for Nobel. Else, null result (like Brito et al), this is also a clean result. Then try another theory/design. Don't expect better thrusting as any guideline for the new design as this is all or nothing, either you have a real effect (and improvement can come later, after the Nobel) or you have no real effect (and improving thrust is pointless). So every new design is a blank page.
Consider our medieval scientists, after some time at becoming expert at hoping on a given scale to optimise the averaged apparent weight they build a new and better scale. The experience gained in hoping to fool a mechanical scale is still useful to get non null result with the new model of scale, but not as good. Disparate results... but still non null, and still possible to refine the aptitude to fool this new kind of scale... (also at lower levels). Better and better scales, lower and lower effects, but still non null, and still possible to "improve" on any given scale. At some point a monk remarks that blowing downward has a very small but significant and continuous effect on apparent weight. That would be a real effect (for the goal of flying/hovering). What was gained in terms of progress by all those years of hoping when discovering this new real effect ? Better scales, I grant you that, but for the real effect it's like starting from a blank page.
... after years of this, at some point you can only address the forest of potential sources, as I said, by attempting to increase the force. If you fail to do so, that is another brick in the wall against accepting the theory. So it's best for all parties involved, including the critics, yes?@cuddihy
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true. First of all we'll never be agreed with what is "easy" but even should we under special circumstances, "ease" of experiment has never been one of the criteria used to judge experimental science.
Intresting:
Axion Dark Matter Experiments
G.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)
Oops :Check slides 29/31 and 28/31 on the inclusion of dielectrics (no time for chatting just now)
If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Yes. Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense. Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO
It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
I did not put an angry face, on the contrary, I'm smiling :)Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.QuoteWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NO
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO
It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
I did not put an angry face, on the contrary, I'm smiling :)Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Can this be replicated at a different location?
No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.
Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Is it because of claimed NDA's NO
Is it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NO
It is because there is no comparable facility to CERN
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
I'm glad that you brought up CERN as a comparison, as there is a huge difference to be noticed (besides the scale of CERN):
The experiments at CERN are being performed with the simultaneous cooperations of hundreds of scientists from across the world. I know of several from MIT and other world universities.
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.For sure the scale of those facilities doesn't match CERN.
Ah! That's better.
I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :):
If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Ah! That's better.
I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :):
If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?
Agreed.Ah! That's better.
I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :):
If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?
I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think :)
Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science. Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper :)
I appreciate this too, and would note that if one were looking for that sort of debate, one could quibble about what you mean by "progress" instead of "process". And I would note to you, there is no universally agreed upon definition of what good scientific process looks like. the real point--the one you made well--is that for it to be considered science, one needs to avail themselves to reproducibility or some other form of validation to meet the veracity requirement. If you want your work to be accepted by the broader science community, you want to tell that community enough that they can take it upon themselves to reproduce your work. And just noting, this is what Woodward has always done. Anyone/everyone is invited to his lab at Cal Fullerton. He allows almost anyone onto his weekly distribution, and invites everyone to offer their insights how to make the process as open and transparent as possible. Woodward isn't bothering with NDA's and not worried about patents. He's just doing proof of science. It's the people doing proof of technology, who don't have patents (like SpaceX) who need to be worried about things like NDA's. Why Dr. White is supposedly under NDA is beyond me.Ah! That's better.
I hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :):
If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Thank you Dr. Rodal.
So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?
I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think :)
Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science. Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper :)
Perhaps there should have been an effect under the >7 T mag fields at CERN. Maybe the whole machine is trying to take-off?! ;)
They knew of this effect when they designed the accelerator. Why do you think it was built underground.Perhaps there should have been an effect under the >7 T mag fields at CERN. Maybe the whole machine is trying to take-off?! ;)
We should call them to tell them they should also be measuring thrust forces :D
Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
That is your assertion. Who knows the existence or interaction cross-sections of the proposed axons? They must be different in many ways otherwise we would already be sure of their existence.I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
I don't understand why you brought up the search for Axions at CERN's telescope as an example. CERN's telescope is looking at masses that differ by several orders of magnitude from the axion mass that you would find interacting in a microwave cavity.
What we know very well is the CERN's (X ray) telescope instrument and Axion experiment.That is your assertion. Who knows the existence or interaction cross-sections of the proposed axons? They must be different in many ways otherwise we would already be sure of their existence.I think all these experiments are looking for traces of things not predicted by theory.Seriously. No Axions discovered at CERN == No Axions with our devices.You mean by the CERN Axion Solar Telescope ?
Is this a reasonable stance?
CERN with their Axion Solar Telescope have been looking at a completely different axion mass than the experiments I have been discussing at the University of Washington. So, no, I don't think that CERN not finding axions at that completely different mass invalidates axions interaction for these microwave devices.
The University of Washington ADMX search (for at least one year) is definitely concerning, unless somebody can show that measuring microNewton thrust is somewhat more sensitive that identifying photons, as ADMX is trying to do.
They all have very small signal/noise ratios.
Just like Woodward et al.
I don't understand why you brought up the search for Axions at CERN's telescope as an example. CERN's telescope is looking at masses that differ by several orders of magnitude from the axion mass that you would find interacting in a microwave cavity.
Yes. Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense. Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heavenYes. Close enough though "all" seems to open a crazy box of nonsense. Does the good Doctor pay you to edit his posts online?If the experiments cannot beeasilyreproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
This is certainly not true.
Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Nahhhh. I can't even get him to buy me a martini. He sends me a picture of a virtual one. You call that payment? Sheesh.
Another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
And your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven...
SheeeshHardy har har. I thought that this was the EM Drive Developments thread.
Hardy har har? Back to regular programming? You took the wrong turn?SheeeshHardy har har. I thought that this was the EM Drive Developments thread.
Fixed that for ya. But you're right. Back to regular programming.
[Got more where that one came from. Just sayin'.]
Here I attach slides 27, 28 and 29
Notice how the expected axion coupling increases with expected axion mass.
Look at the magnitude of those Q's (10^6)
They now report testing at much higher frequencies as well: 15 to 120 GHz range. They were previously testing in the 0.81 to 0.86 GHz range, see: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263849#msg1263849
Eagleworks run the Frustrum at 1.94 GHz (twice the value of what ADMX run before, but less than 7 times what they report now in this slide).
They are also running with a lower magnetic field (3 T and 6 T instead of the previously reported >7 T)
They are spacing the dielectric resonators by 1/2 the wavelength in the waveguide.
Nope, but the axiom angle might be related to any frequency difference between 2 photons.
Hmmm, notice the nonlinear waveform in slide 28 ?
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
When you look at it this way, it looks even less okay for EM drive proponents to withhold data from the scientific research community. Major research institutions have the resources to find more signal amidst noise than hobbyists could ever hope for. EM drive researchers should be reaching out to the broader scientific community, to give scientists, researchers, and engineers some evidence, and good faith, that there is something worth investigating in that direction.
.....
Now there's a thought, if the axion is it's own antiparticle, perhaps the decay is so weak in a simple resonator because the 2 photons are out of phase.
Nope, but the axiom angle might be related to any frequency difference between 2 photons.Continued from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1264292#msg1264292
Hmmm, notice the nonlinear waveform in slide 28 ?
....Here they fabricate a flexible photonic crystal using alumina balls inserted in a Teflon tube
Reminds me that dielectric layers can be used to isolate the electric and magnetic interactions (as in the dielectric/metal/dielectric optical filter). Maybe in the COMSOL model of the Sawyer resonator ?
...
"and choose the dimensions to ensure a reflection-free transmission of the beam from the vacuum-filled section to the dielectric-filled section."I fully agree. The theoretical writings (justifying why his inventions don't break conservation of momentum) from Shawyer don't make sense to me either. But he may have -by chance and by pursuing his microwave idea- into something that works for entirely different reasons.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. On the one hand it suggests that the dielectric is a half-wave "optical" thickness, and on the other hand that would increase the absorption at that end of the cavity and reduce the cavity Q. (or at least the air part of the cavity Q, since you now have a dielectric resonator being fed from the air cavity)
Wasn't there some sort of comment about the Cannae drive cavity just becoming a matching network for the dielectric in the feed line. ?p. 10 of the "Anomalous Thrust ..." paper:
Wasn't there some sort of comment about the Cannae drive cavity just becoming a matching network for the dielectric in the feed line. ?
Wasn't there some sort of comment about the Cannae drive cavity just becoming a matching network for the dielectric in the feed line. ?
really funny good jobRejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven...
Yeah sure. That's what they told Osama Bin Laden:
When OBL died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence. "
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Osama wept and Said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"
Raketa, read back in the thread a ways, this is not a good idea. Current thrust level for both what Eagleworks and Woodward have studied are too low, and more importantly too inconsistent& not sustained, to provide sufficient impulse to see some an unquestioned effect in orbit, especially in high-drag environment like ISS altitude.Ion engine thrust 20-250mN
Raketa, read back in the thread a ways, this is not a good idea. Current thrust level for both what Eagleworks and Woodward have studied are too low, and more importantly too inconsistent& not sustained, to provide sufficient impulse to see some an unquestioned effect in orbit, especially in high-drag environment like ISS altitude.Ion engine thrust 20-250mN
Dragon solar panels could deliver 2kW power.
Chinese claim 720mN with 2.5 kW
NASA 91uN with just 0.017kW
Are you it will be not possible indicate slowing of decay Dragon trunk?
AndRaketa, read back in the thread a ways, this is not a good idea. Current thrust level for both what Eagleworks and Woodward have studied are too low, and more importantly too inconsistent& not sustained, to provide sufficient impulse to see some an unquestioned effect in orbit, especially in high-drag environment like ISS altitude.Ion engine thrust 20-250mN
Dragon solar panels could deliver 2kW power.
Chinese claim 720mN with 2.5 kW
NASA 91uN with just 0.017kW
Are you it will be not possible indicate slowing of decay Dragon trunk?
I think the problem with choosing to fund them now is the present absence of delineation between interactions with the torsion pendulum and actual thrust. Satellite power is not a problem.
AndRaketa, read back in the thread a ways, this is not a good idea. Current thrust level for both what Eagleworks and Woodward have studied are too low, and more importantly too inconsistent& not sustained, to provide sufficient impulse to see some an unquestioned effect in orbit, especially in high-drag environment like ISS altitude.Ion engine thrust 20-250mN
Dragon solar panels could deliver 2kW power.
Chinese claim 720mN with 2.5 kW
NASA 91uN with just 0.017kW
Are you it will be not possible indicate slowing of decay Dragon trunk?
I think the problem with choosing to fund them now is the present absence of delineation between interactions with the torsion pendulum and actual thrust. Satellite power is not a problem.
NASA Tapered Cavity THRUST force =5*10^(-5) N to 9*10^(-5) N demonstrated for less than 40 seconds pulse duration
Another interesting paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5676.pdf
OK, here's the Bose-Einstein paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.1106v4.pdf
OK, here's the Bose-Einstein paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.1106v4.pdfIs there an estimate of what would be the effective density (mass over occupied volume) of the Bose-Einstein condensate of axion Cold Dark Matter?
OK, here's the Bose-Einstein paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.1106v4.pdfIs there an estimate of what would be the effective density (mass over occupied volume) of the Bose-Einstein condensate of axion Cold Dark Matter?
Here is a paper written to describe the Casimir energy between a metallic plate and a dielectric plate within a cavity. The configuration is somewhat similar to the Tapered Cavity tested at EagleWorks.
http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml# (http://math.scichina.com:8081/sciAe/EN/abstract/abstract377962.shtml#)
I wonder if someone can help interpret this paper. To me, it does not seem consistent with what has been published elsewhere, in particular I see an unfamiliar termQuotewhere -pi/(24a^2) is the Casimir force between two ideal conducting plates separated by a.
But also this paper is developed in a reference system where c=1, h-bar=1. That is a common system but how does one convert the results into standard units of measure.
I forgot, if I ever knew how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)
Well yes I know that, but the author uses "1" in the equations derivation for each of these terms so where do I substitute the real values back into the end result to get real measurable values? Am I forced to carefully follow the derivation through to the end then know where the c's and h-bars go? (numerator, denominator, power, etc.)
OK, here's the Bose-Einstein paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.1106v4.pdf
So, as I see this it would work like Dr. White's momentum-transfer model within a "sea of weakly-interacting particles surrounding the outside and the inside of the spacecraft" with the following big changes (Cold Dark Matter instead of Quantum Vacuum virtual particles):Quantum Vacuum Plasma--> Bose-Einstein Condensate of Axions (but both acting as a "compressible fluid" in Dr. White's conceptual model)electron-positron virtual particle pair--> Axions (Cold Dark Matter)
Unresolved issues:
A) Four experiments consistently point towards an axion mass of 110*10^(-6) eV. This mass implies a microwave frequency for ADMX experiment of ~30GHZ or about 15 times higher than the frequency at which NASA Eagleworks run the Truncated Cone Cavity (1.94 GHz).
B) The NASA Eagleworks experiments are missing the ~3 T magnetic field surrounding the microwave cavity. The only magnetic field in the Eagleworks experiments is the one produced by the three neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets, which are there only by chance ( to dampen the swinging and torsional oscillations of the inverted pendulum). The magnetic damper is located about a foot away from the tested microwave device (Cannae or Frustum). The magnetic field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet is 1.25 T
Still, it makes much more sense than the "exotic" theories: a real particle (axions) from the exterior exchanging real momentum with the photons and not interacting with the metal walls of the cavity:
<<
2. A Bose-Einstein condensate would certainly take care of the mass coupling problem.
3. The coupling constant is the same in both directions: axion->photons, photons->axion.
>>
It doesn't present the much greater difficulties associated with Woodward's theory and the Quantum Vacuum theory.
I was suggesting first to proof/disproof in space, because lot of people thinking this is good idea, why we didn't try to make it happen.An in space demo is a TRL7 demo. Woodward is at TRL5 right now. Before you go to space, what you want is a phase 1, TRL6 demo that is very close to the commercial grade thruster you'd use for phase 2, TRL7--meaning similar in magnitude thrust (20 mN is fine if the FOM's are good), Figures of Merit (FOM's) for thrust to mass and thrust to power that can fly a spacecraft, thermal stability such that the thruster will work continuously in space where only black body radiation (T^4) can be used for cooling, and of course the continuous operation. Woodward is currently a long way from these things, but these are the things I'm currently looking to finance through a DARPA grant if I can find the proper Principle Investigator. Anyone who wants the job should let me know. We already have a basic design that should meet all these above criteria. PhD's in physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering and materials science will be considered.
I am putting my money where my mouth is ready to pledge initial $1000 for this project.
1/Could we contact professor Dr Woodward if he will be interesting to participate and build his apparatus for space environment.
2/We have to find who will do crowdsourcing for us. Does anybody have experience or could recommend it somebody who has good reputation. . .
Found the below link while researching Unruh. I've been reading about this guy's theory of modified inertia called MiHsC. Here are his comments on emdrive:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/09/emdrives-mihsc.html
Can anybody provide a link to information from Roger Shawyer showing the dielectric material Shawyer uses, the dielectric shape and dimensions and the dielectric location ?
...Woodward is working on some crowdsourcing at present, but note that he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology as this above. He's not looking at a TRL7 demo while we're planning around one. ..Concerning only any possible technical reasons for your statement that "he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology:"
...Where is the above quotation from? (I would appreciate a link for it so that I can further understand the context)
But I don't think he uses that approach any more:
"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
When you look at it this way, it looks even less okay for EM drive proponents to withhold data from the scientific research community. Major research institutions have the resources to find more signal amidst noise than hobbyists could ever hope for. EM drive researchers should be reaching out to the broader scientific community, to give scientists, researchers, and engineers some evidence, and good faith, that there is something worth investigating in that direction.
So, at that point in time, at least, he must have been interested in proof of technology, as the US Patent Office (from our Constitution) grants a patent, and hence a monopoly, to reward proof of such technology and its future development. It is interesting that according to Google Patent Search:That patent was owned by Woodward and Fullerton, and it was Fullerton's responsibility to pay to keep it in force. They failed in that obligation. At this point in his 70's, as a survivor of several different kinds of terminal cancer and a long way down the road from that early work, I think he is just more satisfied to do the proof of science rather than look at what it takes to build spaceships. However, he did file for another patent with SSI a couple years ago and I am not sure about the status of that. That was not a replacement patent. It was for the power system instead of the thruster.
Fee status: Lapsed
for the above-mentioned patent. (With the important Google disclaimer that this is not a legal conclusion).
It would be interesting if you could expand:
Does Prof. Woodward have other patents that superseded the above-mentioned patent? If indeed the above information is correct that the fee status has lapsed, and if you are correct in stating that <<he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology >> has anything changed technically since he originally obtained the above-mentioned patent that would motivate to concentrate now on proof of science, rather than proof of technology ?
Of course, there are shades of gray in all this, for example his source of funds at that point in time may have been the one pushing for a patent. I am not interested in his personal motivations, I'm only interested in whether there are some technical reasons (for example the "bulk acceleration" issue, etc.) that may have produced a change of priorities concerning proof of technology.
That patent was owned by Woodward and Fullerton, and it was Fullerton's responsibility to pay to keep it in force. They failed in that obligation. At this point in his 70's, as a survivor of several different kinds of terminal cancer and a long way down the road from that early work, I think he is just more satisfied to do the proof of science rather than look at what it takes to build spaceships. ...
I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
Hi Ron,I was suggesting first to proof/disproof in space, because lot of people thinking this is good idea, why we didn't try to make it happen.An in space demo is a TRL7 demo. Woodward is at TRL5 right now. Before you go to space, what you want is a phase 1, TRL6 demo that is very close to the commercial grade thruster you'd use for phase 2, TRL7--meaning similar in magnitude thrust (20 mN is fine if the FOM's are good), Figures of Merit (FOM's) for thrust to mass and thrust to power that can fly a spacecraft, thermal stability such that the thruster will work continuously in space where only black body radiation (T^4) can be used for cooling, and of course the continuous operation. Woodward is currently a long way from these things, but these are the things I'm currently looking to finance through a DARPA grant if I can find the proper Principle Investigator. Anyone who wants the job should let me know. We already have a basic design that should meet all these above criteria. PhD's in physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering and materials science will be considered.
I am putting my money where my mouth is ready to pledge initial $1000 for this project.
1/Could we contact professor Dr Woodward if he will be interesting to participate and build his apparatus for space environment.
2/We have to find who will do crowdsourcing for us. Does anybody have experience or could recommend it somebody who has good reputation. . .
Note we're planning to run a concurrent project to develop our own proprietary radiation hardening technology that will allow all future spacecraft to fly through the Van Allen Belt undamaged. Plasma physicists or anyone who thinks they have the qualifications for that project should likewise feel free to contact me.
Woodward is working on some crowdsourcing at present, but note that he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology as this above. He's not looking at a TRL7 demo while we're planning around one. Note too that in-space demos are very expensive. You not only can't do them on a hobby budget; you can't do them on a crowdsourcing budget. It is millions of dollars to loft a spacecraft to LEO unless you use a nanosat, in which case you might get the launch for free, but you'll then have to pay for some expensive miniaturization, so its millions of dollars either way.
. . .my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalistsI'm sorry but that's not true at all. Obviously, you have not read the book.
please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few secondsWhile I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, all i can say in few words is, you are putting out criteria that are unreasonable and unnecessary. In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory. The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on. Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction! And let me note again, that when you are not familiar with the details of what has been published on this subject, to complain there has not be what you want published, is a little silly. Read Woodward's book. It's a fascinating read meant for engineers. I promise it is fun or I owe you a beer.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.Agreed, but those who have read the book are starting to make their sentiments known. Sometimes these things take time. The book is not even 2 years old.
But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .All of Woodward's data has been given to Creon Levit, NASA's main comp guy at Ames. Also this summer, Woodward upgraded his instrumentation to Labview, so the data will be easier to obtain and digest in the future. I believe that data acquisition system goes online in just another week or so.
. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?As noted, all what you're asking for save the self-contained issue has previously been addressed, and you should not presume Eagle hasn't done the same. NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. You should not expect to see that kind of thing here. Dennis and Creon are top notch guys. Sometimes you just need to wait for the hammer to fall.
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
What you're describing is one of 5 plans in progress for the DARPA grant process.
DARPA grants are very odd compared to other grants because they require the whole TRL process. They generally cover TRL6 and 7 in 2 phases, but they require the TRL-1-5 history, the phase 1 TRL6 plan in detail, the follow on TRL7 plan in detail (though they expect changes after phase 1), the plan for the jump to TRL8 commercialization including whom will build the product and a market analysis of who would pay for it. What you're taking about is part of the TRL9 analysis, which is to provide Dragon with an M-E trunk that can take it to the Moon and Mars. This is one of 5 early "low thrust" applications, but the trunk needs to be completely refitted so this is not a cheap nor simple issue.
What is cheap is to catch a free ride to orbit for a nanosat, but this still requires miniaturization. And really you don't want to send stuff to orbit without paying for that step because that is the step where radiation hardening takes place, and where the actual FOM's for future spacecraft with all their working systems come from. You want the grant to pay for the miniaturization so you have it ready to go to market. In our case, miniaturization does not happen until phase 2/TRL7, but this is quite normal and the electrical engineering for this can be shopped out to literally dozens of places so there is little challenge there save how it affects delivery times of other portions of the project.
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Yes, that was my opinion he quoted. And I'm sorry if that truth seems to annoy but it is the truth. NASA does not consult engineering forums like these when they make decisions. In fact, I have several times advised Dr. Bushnell what forums like this are saying and doing as I think it's worth knowing. Dennis does what I used to do back when I was working for the Advanced Aerospace Research Center and we have compared notes on more than one occasion. He certainly does not need to hear what goes on in places like this but he does listen, and as I've already noted, anyone who has been around a few years on one or more of these boards knows how opinionated and predictable these forums are.I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Don't know about anyone else, but I would assume your quote of Ron is his personal opinion. Even though I tend to agree with him on this issue. While I appreciate the forum and the participation to date. My strong suspicion is that outside of Woodward's mailing list, we will not get any more information about these type of propulsion devices till Another paper or set of results is published. I think the EagleWork's guys are only concerned with answering to their source of funding and the respective NASA officials that they have to report to.
I think the biggest value of this thread so far is that your [Rodal] attempt at breaking down what has been reported so far has forced people with some more knowledge than what is easily available to find their way here.
QuoteHold tha damn phone.Yes.
Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??
Hi @birchoff,I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Don't know about anyone else, but I would assume your quote of Ron is his personal opinion. Even though I tend to agree with him on this issue. While I appreciate the forum and the participation to date. My strong suspicion is that outside of Woodward's mailing list, we will not get any more information about these type of propulsion devices till Another paper or set of results is published. I think the EagleWork's guys are only concerned with answering to their source of funding and the respective NASA officials that they have to report to.
I think the biggest value of this thread so far is that your [Rodal] attempt at breaking down what has been reported so far has forced people with some more knowledge than what is easily available to find their way here.
Dr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?You are incorrect. I have only commented about the specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts, including links and explicit quotations.
And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.
Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?
What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?
It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:
<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>
This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
Dr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?You are incorrect. I have only commented about the specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts, including links and explicit quotations.
And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.
I have only commented about the specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts, including links and explicit quotations.
Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?
What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?
It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:
<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>
This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
I'll splash news onto a couple forums when we make some headway, but as I stated the other day, I am still looking for a pair of Principle Investigators to run the UFG MET project and to run the Rad Hardening project. Both grants need PhD's to run them who demonstrate aptitude for the task. The first (the thruster) is very complex. We don't need nor even want a "believer" in the commons sense and are better suited with a skeptic, but in any case we need folks who are able to understand the complex details of the setup, as well as construction and a handful of other things. A physicist could do it but I'd rather have an able engineer.QuoteHold tha damn phone.Yes.
Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??
And where can a space geek go to keep abreast of such developments?
You're entirely right. Slander was a very unfortunate choice of words. Slander is always intentional IIUC, and my point was certainly, that you mischaracterized this issue out of ignorance rather than malice. I do not think you intended any malice, but rather; that you are demonstrating a very common and understandable skepticism. Lets be candid shall we? Not one in 100 schemes like what we're here talking about is worth the time to look at. And nothing against engineers! but almost always they are the result of an engineer pretending to be a physicist. There used to be an entire site dedicated to this kind of chicanery--"American Antigravity". So anyone who is interested in the field of advanced propulsion, necessarily needs to develop some skepticism over time. Almost all this stuff is crackpot! IMHO, the QVF stuff is crackpot and that's coming from NASA!Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?
What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?
It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:
<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>
This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
Mr. Stahl, you have now raised this to another, serious level. You have now stated << you are here slandering a good man >>. Slander is "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation"
I asked a question, whether goal posts where being moved, regarding the appearance of "bulk acceleration," which I had not seen previously. The explanation was given by a number of people in this forum, regarding what you call the MLT type of thruster that motivated my question. I have not questioned those answers and I have moved over to other issues as I always made clear that I had no other interest than the NASA experiments. At that time I thought that Dr. White's slide 40 (on the "MLT") was an experiment run at NASA.
You should know all this by now, so you are the one making a completely unfounded charge.
You should retract your unfounded charge that I slandered anybody.
You're entirely right. Slander was a very unfortunate choice of words. Slander is always intentional IIUC, and my point was certainly, that you mischaracterized this issue out of ignorance rather than malice. I do not think you intended any malice, but rather; that you are demonstrating a very common and understandable skepticism. Lets be candid shall we? Not one in 100 schemes like what we're here talking about is worth the time to look at. And nothing against engineers! but almost always they are the result of an engineer pretending to be a physicist. There used to be an entire site dedicated to this kind of chicanery--"American Antigravity". So anyone who is interested in the field of advanced propulsion, necessarily needs to develop some skepticism over time. Almost all this stuff is crackpot! IMHO, the QVF stuff is crackpot and that's coming from NASA!Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?
What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?
It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:
<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>
This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
Mr. Stahl, you have now raised this to another, serious level. You have now stated << you are here slandering a good man >>. Slander is "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation"
I asked a question, whether goal posts where being moved, regarding the appearance of "bulk acceleration," which I had not seen previously. The explanation was given by a number of people in this forum, regarding what you call the MLT type of thruster that motivated my question. I have not questioned those answers and I have moved over to other issues as I always made clear that I had no other interest than the NASA experiments. At that time I thought that Dr. White's slide 40 (on the "MLT") was an experiment run at NASA.
You should know all this by now, so you are the one making a completely unfounded charge.
You should retract your unfounded charge that I slandered anybody.
So there are no hard feelings here and I really should not have written "slander" as that was just plain wrong and you have my apology. Please do try to sympathize, I've known Jim for many years now, and he is an excellent man of honor and integrity, due proper respect and a fair shake, which he does not usually get.
I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.
Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):
(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)
It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
. . .my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalistsI'm sorry but that's not true at all. Obviously, you have not read the book.
Quoteplease produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few secondsWhile I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, all i can say in few words is, you are putting out criteria that are unreasonable and unnecessary.
In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory.And people able to judge the theory wont be interested to even read the book before there are clear enough signals in clean enough experimental setups (see above -> necessary).
The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.
Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):
(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)
It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007.
Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.
What you're describing is one of 5 plans in progress for the DARPA grant process.Got it, thank you for explaining process.
DARPA grants are very odd compared to other grants because they require the whole TRL process. They generally cover TRL6 and 7 in 2 phases, but they require the TRL-1-5 history, the phase 1 TRL6 plan in detail, the follow on TRL7 plan in detail (though they expect changes after phase 1), the plan for the jump to TRL8 commercialization including whom will build the product and a market analysis of who would pay for it. What you're taking about is part of the TRL9 analysis, which is to provide Dragon with an M-E trunk that can take it to the Moon and Mars. This is one of 5 early "low thrust" applications, but the trunk needs to be completely refitted so this is not a cheap nor simple issue.
What is cheap is to catch a free ride to orbit for a nanosat, but this still requires miniaturization. And really you don't want to send stuff to orbit without paying for that step because that is the step where radiation hardening takes place, and where the actual FOM's for future spacecraft with all their working systems come from. You want the grant to pay for the miniaturization so you have it ready to go to market. In our case, miniaturization does not happen until phase 2/TRL7, but this is quite normal and the electrical engineering for this can be shopped out to literally dozens of places so there is little challenge there save how it affects delivery times of other portions of the project.
will ... bring some numbers to this axion craze ..
Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.
Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):
(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)
It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007.
Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.
This is my understanding:
Cannae drive: E field data is provided. No Q factor provided.
Tapered Cavity: E field numerical data range not provided. Q factor provided.
________________
These are my calculations for the Maximum power density in ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator for Cannae device (notice the frequency "f" in the calculation):
MaximumPower = 2 Pi f (E^2) (permittivity of free space) (epsilon')
Taking the
maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m , and the given
frequency of 935 MHz, it follows (for the Teflon PTFE dielectric resonator) that:
MaximumPower per unit volume [W/m^3] = 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) (( 4.7189*10^4)^2) (8.85418782*10^(-12)) (2.1)
MaximumPower per unit volume (in the dielectric resonator)~ 243 W/cm^3
In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory. The experimental setup is not the trouble.
Ron, I'm new to this site, but it is my impression is that it would help if you would also include the author of the quotes...
Yes, that was my opinion he quoted. And I'm sorry if that truth seems to annoy but it is the truth.
...anyone who has been around a few years on one or more of these boards knows how opinionated and predictable these forums are.
quite funny indeed. ...
Here however we have a clear demonstration of how rational choice theory often fails. It is always complicate to justify rationally the behaviour of individuals wasting their time to say "there is nothing to say here because you are all wrong and uninteresting".
Outside of this thread and forum you would be considered an anomaly.
they wouldn't givea kopecktwo bits on the whole line of research...
Oh. E dal dipartimento di "Solo Dicendo", che lo scorso Martini tuo mancava di sostanza, diciamo.
......
And people able to judge the theory wont be interested to even read the book before there are clear enough signals in clean enough experimental setups (see above -> necessary).
......
Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction!
And let me note again, that when you are not familiar with the details of what has been published on this subject, to complain there has not be what you want published, is a little silly. Read Woodward's book. It's a fascinating read meant for engineers. I promise it is fun or I owe you a beer.What we can contribute scientifically on this thread is limited by our respective (and respectable) abilities and time. It might be silly to try to contribute to more than a decade of work before diving in all every single publication. Dr Rodal made a lot of effort to collect and summarize part of this line research for a wider audience. This is useful. As for Woodward's book, I'm not looking for fun (though that couldn't hurt) but for facts. Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.
Understood.Quote from: frobnicatSo far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.Agreed, but those who have read the book are starting to make their sentiments known. Sometimes these things take time. The book is not even 2 years old.
Progress in the process. Great news.QuoteBut it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .All of Woodward's data has been given to Creon Levit, NASA's main comp guy at Ames. Also this summer, Woodward upgraded his instrumentation to Labview, so the data will be easier to obtain and digest in the future. I believe that data acquisition system goes online in just another week or so.
Quote. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?As noted, all what you're asking for save the self-contained issue has previously been addressed, and you should not presume Eagle hasn't done the same. NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. You should not expect to see that kind of thing here. Dennis and Creon are top notch guys. Sometimes you just need to wait for the hammer to fall.
...
At one time I was ready to unsheathe my gnuplot and make a few scatterplots of reported thrusts versus sidereal time to see if there is correlation that could indicate a coupling of device with a flow or a particular local (at least solar system wide) frame of reference. I don't know of any attempt at doing that, that may be completely off topic in the views of the leading theories of Woodward, White et al, but since those theories are far from verification other mechanisms than thought may be at play (assuming a real effect). Asked here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263885#msg1263885) and there (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1263934#msg1263934) if such sidereal time was ever taken into account, appears no, or no one knows (or I missed an answer on that ?)
Well, probably it would be a negative, but that could be the kind of small third party hobbyist level lateral investigation that could stand a little chance of helping the topic... In this particular case, I complain timestamped experimental data in readable format are either not publicly available or very hard to find. If any-one knows something like a list of a dozen (preferably 100s) of timestamped on/off thrust sessions results. I can't believe dr White (anomalous thrust...) did only 5 or 6 30s sessions, said "ok we got a signal" and switched to another device ... Even at hobbyist level of funding, we would expect more logged and published data points from this kind of experiments.
If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.
QuoteRumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction!
Yes it is, that is good news and may make some of my previous remarks partly irrelevant.
...mai ti ho promesso...
John C. Mather
Si je ne trouve pas que ce fait vous me devez un ours.
It might be silly to try to contribute to more than a decade of work before diving in all every single publication.
If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.Excellent way to state it. You worded it better than I did.
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.
Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should. I did say "probably the only source of info". But still, allow me to rephrase:Quote from: JFNotice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
I include a scan of pages 33-35 of Woodward's "Stargate" book, claiming fair use for educational purposes.
I have relied upon a friend of mine with far better grounding in the math and GR theory, for his opinion that these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles of the device.
Break it down to my level, ok?
Algebraic and undergrad calculus.
As you probably realize, if the sources of the "external" accelerating force are taken into account, the second term still vanishes.Agreed. Of interest, in the paper that is used as a reference for those equations, Sciama himself pointed out that:.
I think we're talking past each other because you're not familiar with what I've been relating, which is Woodward's work. I have little interest in the work at Eagle because I know the QVF hypothesis is wrong. The Eagle work interests me in as much as it may be stumbling across M-E evidence, but this would be by mistake. For example, it works only with a dielectric and during switching transients which bear enough in common with an AC signal they can produce decent thrust. But the DC signal doesn't do this.QuoteThe experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.
Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.
Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.
Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear. Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
It has been asserted and supported that the spurious signals associated with the experimental apparatus are a flaw in the experimental procedure which should be accommodated.By whom has this been asserted? Not by Dennis. Please precise your statements so we can tell if they're true. Who made this claim about which setup?
Attempts to calculate the magnitude of some kinds of the spurious forces depend upon dimensional data of the apparatus, data which has been deliberately kept under wraps.You must be speaking of the Eagle work. This is certainly not true of Woodward's work. he put it in his book, publishes it every year and handed over the raw data to NASA. He hasn't kept anything under wraps. Who are you speaking of?
Analysis of the theory itself has suggested substantial flaws, with several attempts to propose more and more esoteric phenomena instead of the mass fluctuations which are the foundation of Woodward's theory.This is just factually incorrect. There's no truth to this statement at all, John. Are you just making this stuff up?
In fact, some posters have suggested that the experiment will be sufficient proof of the anomalous thrusts, regardless of the correctness of the theory.More weasel word's John. What posters, where? Who is making these charges? Stop pretending to make complaints by pretending to represent others. Either you have a specific complaint to make or you don't. Do you or don't you? This is most irresponsible language, John.
Many posters here have provided the caveat of how they don't have the time to understand and critique the theory, but go on to assert, without support, the soundness of the theory, or to propose yet another far fetched special effect of physics in support of the theory.I think it's entirely likely there is not a single person in this forum with the skills to understand Woodward's theory. This doesn't mean we're not entitled to make our best judgement of the evidence we can digest and stand by that judgement. This is what taking responsibility is all about. You on the other hand seem contented to make veiled insults and comments about comments with no support nor evidence. Lets see the substance for these unfounded claims, John.
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.You're deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my word's, John. I have repeatedly noted you can read Woodward's papers. They're all available for free online. The book constantly references the papers, but it is not usually the primary source--the peer reviewed papers are. Still, the book gathers the work of 20 years into a single place, adds more detail than can be had in papers be they peer reviewed or conference, and is written for engineers rather than physicists. Most of the people in this forum are not conversant in General Relativity, including you, John; so in general, you'll find the book a better source since it is written for people in your skill set.
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.
Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should. I did say "probably the only source of info". But still, allow me to rephrase:Quote from: JFNotice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
You're deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my word's, John.
QuoteTime permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear. Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
Interesting. I will definitely read book.I think we're talking past each other because you're not familiar with what I've been relating, which is Woodward's work. I have little interest in the work at Eagle because I know the QVF hypothesis is wrong. The Eagle work interests me in as much as it may be stumbling across M-E evidence, but this would be by mistake. For example, it works only with a dielectric and during switching transients which bear enough in common with an AC signal they can produce decent thrust. But the DC signal doesn't do this.QuoteThe experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.
Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.
Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.
Keep in mind the contrast here. Woodward's scheme does not violate conservation. There's nothing "new" in his work, nor any contradictions with conventional science. In fact, while explaining his work, he very ably answered questions about the classical and semi-classical electron models we've had for decades, and as I said, he deserves a Nobel for this alone. I'm not suggesting you skip ahead, but chapter 7 is a nail-biter.
In any event, I agree the "this is impossible" kinds of statements are unhelpful. And the statement that QVF violates conservation is not really true. That's a distraction fallacy intended to be later explained away as one becomes aware of what QVF is proposing. However what is not a distraction is that QVF violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP). In that scheme, the virtual proton/electron pairs cannot gravitate or they would have collapsed the universe, and yet they mediate momentum transfer. This means they have to have different values for their gravitational and inertial masses, which violates EEP and all of GR. QVF is therefore not true.
Woodward's work has done the opposite of deny what we know about life the universe and everything. He has added to what we know by explaining how the surface of the electron can spin at 100c. This is an amazing accomplishment since before Woodward's work, that seemed like a violation of GR, and as it turns out, it is required by GR.
As to your frustration in general, I feel your pain. I would just point out however, that frustration does not justify failure to do due diligence. As I explained earlier, the experimental setup does not lend itself to the kinds of simplification you're requiring. You therefore need to invest the time to look at how the setup actually works, rather than stipulate it ought to work how you'd like. The self-contained setup is NOT the best setup for the work Woodward has been doing to date. Along these same lines I'd note to you, that you justify the work of others who did not provide vacuum, and appear to presume Woodward did not provide vacuum. This is not true. All of the spurious sources one can imagine have been dealt with one by one on Woodward's balance, including thermal, ion, Dean Drive effects, displacement effect, etc. All of this is in the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223QuoteTime permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear. Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
I think we should be mindful to separate the "how" from the "why" until the effect has been scaled up and proven/dis proven.
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.Woodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass during deformation, since deformation changes the energy in these bonds and energy = mass X c^2.
...Where is the above quotation from? (I would appreciate a link for it so that I can further understand the context)
But I don't think he uses that approach any more:
"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."
Thanks for your response
_________
PS: I looked for it , but I could not find that statement in this 2006 report: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
...these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles
When there are equations, I prefer to just go with equations -that's my personal viewpoint. If I am missing some new equation, I would appreciate it being pointed out. Thank you.
...Where is the above quotation from? (I would appreciate a link for it so that I can further understand the context)
But I don't think he uses that approach any more:
"The first thruster built by SPR Ltd and tested in 2003 also used a dielectric section, but to obtain our subsequent high thrust levels, we abandoned the dielectric and concentrated on our present cavity design."
Thanks for your response
_________
PS: I looked for it , but I could not find that statement in this 2006 report: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
This was in an email from Dr Shawyer in response to the NASA paper. Have you tried contacting him?
He also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.This is a common mistake even physicists make very often. Although negative mass has negative gravitational action and is thus repelled by other matter, it also has negative inertial action so the direction of the former is reversed by the latter. So negative mass actually acts like normal mass, despite it's backward inertia.
This is from a paper written by Sciama one year after he wrote the 1953 paper that Woodward uses as the foundation for his transient equations based on Machian inertia. Please reconsider your statement that Sciama made a mistake in 1954 in not properly considering Machian "inertial action"He also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.This is a common mistake even physicists make very often. Although negative mass has negative gravitational action and is thus repelled by other matter, it also has negative inertial action so the direction of the former is reversed by the latter. So negative mass actually acts like normal mass, despite it's backward inertia.
How can we get instantaneous thrust if the action depends on a gravinertial field propagating at C.This is an excellent question and holds for EM fields as well as gravitational. Wheeler and Feyman's answer is found in their absorber theory:
Yes. That's completely correct. Sciama is of course right that negative gravitational action comes from negative gravitational mass, but IIRC, he failed to note the negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action, and I have seen many physicists do this same thing. I myself presumed if negative mass were a natural state of matter, that it would be scarce since it would be repelled by normal mass, but Woodward corrected me that although it would want to fall away from all matter, it would fall toward it because of the reversed inertial sign. As it turns out, we're surrounded by negative matter but didn't realize it until Woodward's discovery.This is a paper from a paper written by Sciama one year after he wrote the 1953 paper that Woodward uses as the foundation for his transient equations based on Machian inertia. Please reconsider your statement that Sciama made a mistake in 1954 in not properly considering Machian "inertial action"He also concludes that they should have gravitational repulsion and could be used as a gravity shield.This is a common mistake even physicists make very often. Although negative mass has negative gravitational action and is thus repelled by other matter, it also has negative inertial action so the direction of the former is reversed by the latter. So negative mass actually acts like normal mass, despite it's backward inertia.
Sciama's negative energy particles in this paper are not due to or related to what Woodward considers negative energy due to the quadratic of the transient term.
Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.
This isn't relevant anymore.
negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action
negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action
Isn't that only true for the negative mass? Positive mass would still be repelled by it.
Thanks for sending the link. I gotta say though, in the conclusion, it basically says that Mach's principle wasn't viable until dark matter and energy came on scene.Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.
He knew it was expanding. Isn't that what a "Robertson-Walker" metric means? Y'know, more or less...QuoteThis isn't relevant anymore.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3096v2.pdf
Thanks for sending the link. I gotta say though, in the conclusion, it basically says that Mach's principle wasn't viable until dark matter and energy came on scene.Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.
He knew it was expanding. Isn't that what a "Robertson-Walker" metric means? Y'know, more or less...QuoteThis isn't relevant anymore.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3096v2.pdf
Edit: Additional thought. If dark energy/matter haven't been detected, this paper essentially poo poos Mach's principle. Does this sound like a logical flow?
If dark energy/matter haven't been detected, this paper essentially poo poos Mach's principle.
negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action
Isn't that only true for the negative mass? Positive mass would still be repelled by it.
And therefore would act as a gravity shield against our planet's (positive mass) attraction, which was the whole point of Sciama's 1954 paper.
Woodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass during deformation, since deformation changes the energy in these bonds and energy = mass X c^2.
Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.
Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):
(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the S is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)
It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007.
Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.
This is my understanding:
Cannae drive: E field data is provided. No Q factor provided.
Tapered Cavity: E field numerical data range not provided. Q factor provided.
________________
These are my calculations for the Maximum power density in ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator for Cannae device (notice the frequency "f" in the calculation):
MaximumPower = 2 Pi f (E^2) (permittivity of free space) (epsilon')
Taking the
maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m , and the given
frequency of 935 MHz, it follows (for the Teflon PTFE dielectric resonator) that:
MaximumPower per unit volume [W/m^3] = 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) (( 4.7189*10^4)^2) (8.85418782*10^(-12)) (2.1)
MaximumPower per unit volume (in the dielectric resonator)~ 243 W/cm^3
If you divide your
<<E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre>>
by the square root of the angular frequency for the Cannae drive:
Sqrt[ 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) ] = 76647.1
one gets:
E field range from 1049 to 2411 Volts per meter.
which is not too far from the COMSOL calculations (there is also an uncertainty due to the Volume)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While for the tapered cavity
If you divide your
<<E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre>> by the actual square root of the angular frequency
Sqrt[ 2 Pi (1932.6*10^6 1/s) ] = 110195
one gets
E field range from 730 to 1677 Volts per meter (there is also an uncertainty due to the Volume)
Thus, Sciama's theory which was intended by Sciama only as an explanation of inertial mass, becomes in this interpretation of Woodward's theory a constitutive theory of matter, as words like "Woodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass duringWoodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass during deformation, since deformation changes the energy in these bonds and energy = mass X c^2.
Interesting, did not know that. Thanks.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1953MNRAS.113...34S&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_LOW&send=GET&filetype=.pdfI agree with aversion toward dark matter. I think you will enjoy Woodward book. I finish just 15%, but it is like course of the history SRT and GRT and in the same try to move forward and solve the problem inertia.
Sciama's 1953 paper above.
I gotta say IMHO of course, I am completely anti Machian and derivatives such as Sciama's take on inertia. Let me explain:
Mach's ideas come from a time where he didn't enjoy the benefit of anything QM. He didn't even believe that atoms exist I read somewhere.
Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.
For the life of me, I cringe when I read things such as local matter interacting with the distant matter of the universe, that kind of stuff. This isn't relevant anymore. How can we get instantaneous thrust if the action depends on a gravinertial field propagating at C.
What makes more sense to me are the various theories which explain the origin of inertia as quantum phenomena. Quantum effects are local, here, and now.
http://calphysics.org/index.html
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+McCulloch_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(similar to above but further modifies inertia when in an environment with very low accelerations)
This emdrive thing has taken up a lot of my time lately, not so much as if or why it works. I have discovered that the jury is out on so many fundamental scientific concepts which I thought were nailed down, like inertia, origin or mass (not simply/only Higgs) and dark matter/energy. The dark energy/matter thing really bugs me. They were clearly invented to explain away inadequacies in theory attempting to explain observation. Instead of revising theory, more "crap" was piled on to fix it. Kinda like the games renormalization plays; card tricks. I think the current state of science is in bad shape in that theory has trumped observation. I get that it is important to spend time/money looking for new particles/gravity waves, etc. But I see little effort from mainstream science to go back and question itself when nothing new is found. One can ride a bunk theory for years and build a career of it. Then we end up with unfalsifiable theories like string theory or more particles like superpartners. Gravinertial fields are yet another invention to address something happening here and now that isn't explained by current accepted theory. Thus I am excited when I read things like "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device" because if it really is true, it will really shake up the old tired paradigm I briefly ranted about above. It would do science a service if we would "play with what we got", instead of creating new theories to play with. GR hasn't let us down yet, but it is macro. There is a gap between macro and micro which could be filled in by modifying GR on its boundaries where appropriate, instead of treating it as complete. Einstein doesn't have an ego anymore. I admire Hawking for continually adjusting to the times.
I think we calculated this a way back, with @notsureofit and @frobnicat and we all concluded that the 2 photon interaction in the microwave is way off from being able to make the virtual electron/positron pair real. I think that it takes a petawatt laser with picosecond period to be able to make the virtual electron/positron pair real. The frequency of the microwave is too low. That's why we eliminated the virtual electron/positron pair.
Pardon me for quoting a volume of information but I think we can now discuss the real point of all this. That is, Rodal can since he has the math, I think.
As we know, the energy needed to create electron/positron pairs is 2*0.511 MeV which equals 1.6374 wattseconds. We now have some idea of the energy contained within the cavity and it is way more than enough to create e/p pairs. But is that energy properly oriented and concentrated enough for pair production? I found that the pair generally moves in the direction of the photon that created it (Wikipedia) but I don't know that any single photon contains sufficient energy, or how to calculate individual photon energy within the cavity.
Of course if pairs can be produced then we need to look very hard at Dr. White's theory for the thrust production.
I did look at the intensity of the RF wave in the dielectric of the Cannae device from the COMSOL figure.
Intensity=Power-watts/area (m^2), so area = power/average intensity = 28 Watts/RF power.
I calculate the area = 9.474 square millimeter, so the power is quite concentrated.
However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it
However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it
I think you're conflating two things: Woodward's theory (which describes what happens when certain things occur in a material) and the properties of the material (which describe how easily and/or efficiently those things can be forced to occur in it).
Woodward's theory itself has no efficiency terms. Those terms result from an attempt to map experimentally imposed parameters onto the quantities appearing in his equations. Since the electromechanical response of the material is what performs this mapping in real life, the efficiency terms represent the constitutive relations, which are not the Mach effect but mediate between the Mach effect and the attempt to force it to happen.
Assuming Woodward's theory is accepted for the sake of argument, saying a real-life material doesn't obey it is like saying a real-life material doesn't obey the law of gravity. A feather may not fall as fast as a brick, but there are other reasons for that.
http://calphysics.org/index.html
"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers."
I thought I explained what I was talking about pretty well...
I thought I explained what I was talking about pretty well...
Well, you edited what you wrote since I answered it. Concerning << Most real-life collisions don't appear to obey conservation of energy, until you account for dissipation of that energy in forms other than the bulk kinetic energy of the colliding objects.
Combining these two examples, bouncing a ball off the pavement and having it not quite come back up to the height it was dropped from does not mean the ball fails to obey either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy>>
Agreed that they do not fail to obey the law of gravity or conservation of energy. What they fail to obey is the (Cauchy-Hooke) law of perfect elasticity. What is normally called the impact "coefficient of restitution" is a constitutive law, it is usually due to plastic, viscoelastic or viscoplastic energy dissipation, which are all due to constitutive relations in which the body is not perfectly elastic. I have edited my previous original post that motivated your comment to now read "W theory" for Woodward's theory plus any constitutive statement (macroscopic or microscopic in nature) attached to it.
not to mention supersymmetry and string theory.
What does the UVA acronym stand for?
...this disappointed you for what reason? because he didn't have the time?
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.
The derivation of the field equation containing A) the second derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density") and B) the square of the first derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density"),
* is not in these pages attached by John. John could you also attach those pages? Thanks
After catching up on the past few pages, I'd be lying if I said I really understood any of what you're discussing. I don't suppose anyone has some good ideas on testable predictions from these theories?
I realize that I asked for a lot up thread, when I requested an equational line of reasoning which started with, say, e=Mc^2 and resulted in propellantless drive or an explanation of inertia.`
Your example is not good what Woodward try to claim. He is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments. I am really recommending to read book, I finish first 15% and it is very interesting. All these claims that he invented device and try to explain how is it works are completely wrong. Looks like he spend lot time to to build his theory and now try to prove it through testing. It is very rare example. If he didn't believe his theory are right, I think he will not wasting time with testing, in his life situation.However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it
I think you're conflating two things: Woodward's theory (which describes what happens when certain things occur in a material) and the properties of the material (which describe how easily and/or efficiently those things can be forced to occur in it).
Woodward's theory itself has no efficiency terms. Those terms result from an attempt to map experimentally imposed parameters onto the quantities appearing in his equations. Since the electromechanical response of the material is what performs this mapping in real life, the efficiency terms represent the constitutive relations, which are not the Mach effect but mediate between the Mach effect and the attempt to force it to happen.
...
Assuming Woodward's theory is accepted for the sake of argument, saying a real-life material doesn't obey it is like saying a real-life material doesn't obey the law of gravity. A feather may not fall as fast as a brick, but there are other reasons for that.
Or perhaps a better example is a collision. Most real-life collisions don't appear to obey conservation of energy, until you account for dissipation of that energy in forms other than the bulk kinetic energy of the colliding objects.
Combining these two examples, bouncing a ball off the pavement and having it not quite come back up to the height it was dropped from does not mean the ball fails to obey either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy.
not to mention supersymmetry and string theory.
I thought string theory was dead now since the Higgs Boson mass was wrong. Or am I totally off base (just something I heard in a talk)?
[Woodward] is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.
Wanted to share info about casimir energies in cavities and vacuum expectation values in various systems. Spent all morning researching boundary conditions wrt shapes other than parallel plates. This says cones have positive casimir energy (repulsive). By repulsive do they mean net effect on the cavity walls?We discussed this with @frobnicat, @aero and others way back in this thread. Nobel Prize Winner Schwinger was so dissatisfied with Casimir's explanation for the Casimir force (that relies on the quantum vacuum) that Schwinger came up with his own derivation that explains the Casimir force strictly as a van der Waal force, in terms of charges. (Great physicists like Pauli, Feynman and DeWitt were also dissatisfied with Casimir's explanation) Casimir was successful in predicting the Casimir force for flat plates but unsuccessful for other geometries. What made it worse is that Casimir's derivation can even get the sign wrong. Schwinger's derivation (although more complicated) gets the sign correctly for different geometries. One problem is that the fine structure constant plays an important role in deriving the Casimir force for different geometries. Casimir's explanation for flat plates does not contain the fine structure constant.
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?
Please continue to scan the pages ... until you reach Woodward's main result: the wave equation for the gravitational potential (the d'Alembertian of phi) on the left hand side of the equation, and on the right hand side of the equation: the term (4 Pi G rho) and the terms containing the derivatives with respect to time.
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices convert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when it´s light, push when it´s heavier. That is how I understand it.
The device aims to convert electricity to forward motion. ...
There are two problems which have not yet been addressed or answered. "Push heavy, pull light", which is the summary of the M-E device's operation, relies upon action at a distance with the inertia of the entire Hubble sphere surrounding the device.
7b. AIUI, it is conjectured that the interstitial atomic bonds in the capacitor move at relativistic speeds, over small distances, with properly timed alternating, opposed electrical signals. Because it is supposed that there is a time lag between the extemes of motion in this cycle, that the electrical signals can be timed so as to "push heavy" in one dirrection, and "pull light" in the other.
Why is there a dollar sign after MachEffect as in "MachEffect$" at the top left of every page?
Please continue to scan the pages ... until you reach Woodward's main result: the wave equation for the gravitational potential (the d'Alembertian of phi) on the left hand side of the equation, and on the right hand side of the equation: the term (4 Pi G rho) and the terms containing the derivatives with respect to time.
In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.
EDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.I think what you're saying is true, but it is not Woodward's theory that all bulk matter stores delta mass when deformed. That's undergrad physical chemistry. Woodward chose shape change materials since they have very large changes in internal energy--the largest I know of. So I don't think it's fair to say this is a constituative part of his theory. His theory only stipulates that if one changes the internal energy of a mass while accelerating it, you will get this 2w fluctuation, or Mach Effect.
So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0. I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).
Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not. However, if one were to accept "W theory" on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature. (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )
...The purpose of your scanning educational exercise was to show in this thread the actual Derivation equations as they appear in The Book, to better guide discussion.
These are all of the equations which precede page 70. There are equations on pages 40 and 66. In between p-35 and p-70 are three addenda, reasonably presumed to support Woodward's derivation, here summarized:
#1 Sciama 1953, p37
#2 Brans, 1962, p388-396
#3 Nordtverdt, 1988, 91395-1404
Would you be so kind as to repost the PDF's for Brans and Nordtverdt? I don't have them yet.
Can you point out to any equation in The Formal Derivation in The Book that were not present in his previously published papers?
Yes, I know that there new and different words, and supporting material. I'm talking strictly about the mathematical equations in The Formal Derivation leading to the final transient fluctuation equation .
So much semantic discussion about attaching a name to a theory!EDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.I think what you're saying is true, but it is not Woodward's theory that all bulk matter stores delta mass when deformed. That's undergrad physical chemistry. Woodward chose shape change materials since they have very large changes in internal energy--the largest I know of. So I don't think it's fair to say this is a constituative part of his theory. His theory only stipulates that if one changes the internal energy of a mass while accelerating it, you will get this 2w fluctuation, or Mach Effect.
So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0. I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).
Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not. However, if one were to accept "W theory" on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature. (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )
John, I don't want to have a conflict with you here. I do feel though I ought to point out that even your questions are wrong. Fact is, what Woodward proposes does work at low velocities. It's not a relativistic mechanism at all. And your posts about chemical bonds and accelerating the lattice, all based on terrible misunderstandings. You are correct that Woodward's theory has nothing to do with Shawyer's model, or White's QVF model. These are just alternative models for explaining this propellantless thrust. However, you don't seem to be able to identify which comments refer to which model or theory.[Woodward] is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.
That's my understanding as well.
I believe that he admits to not being able to accelerate an ion to these speeds, and is now attempting to accelerate the lattice at these speeds.
Again, unless I'm confused, this paper (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052) claims that "Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz".
They offer this tentative explanation for how the device works: "Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma".
This is a different operating principle than the one thought to be operative by Woddward.
Again, unless I'm confused, bewildered, and a host of other terms, including un-read, the thread topic has included these two theories of operation on a propellantless drive.
Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
This is correct. I would note too, that it is not really accurate to say the device converts electrical into mechanical energy, as a transducer. Rather, it controls the flow of the gravinertial flux into and out of the active mass, and this can be used to produce mechanical force. So really the device is a gravinertial transistor. It is not converting one energy form into another but rather, controlling the flow of what gives matter its mass and inertia.Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.
in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when it´s light, push when it´s heavier. That is how I understand it.
Ok, likely an oversimplification on my part, but;
If a solar sail can work via reflected photons, could not another drive, using a pure electron stream, (which has mass) also work?
Pointing a basic idea out here, mass is being expended as a propellent whether that mass be of a chemical, nuclear, ionic or even an electron stream. You have to have SOMETHING to generate the power. be it a generator or solar panels. In the case of Solar panels, the electrons are being generated via the energy produced via capturing and converting photons into electrical power. (Not very effecient, granted, but mass is being exchanged, even is on an almost quantum level).
Like I said, likely a vast oversimplification, but according to basic physics, it should work.
In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.
Assuming that you could either focus, or effectively "Laser" focus the electron stream, there should be some sort of thrust in the opposing direction, even if it were in the millinewtons of force. Basic Newtonian Physics, "Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction."
All theories are "built on the shoulders of giants". No recent (during the past few hundreds years) theory attached to a name has been built solely by the person whose name is attached to it. Einstein's General Relativity uses non-Euclidean geometry and the tools of Levi-Civita, Riemann, and many others. This line of complaining would be like somebody saying that Einstein's theory involves a particular kind of non-Euclidean geometry, and you saying, no that was part of previous knowledge.Woodward has always gone to great lengths to point out his work comes directly from Sciama. I think he sees himself as following Sciama's lead and he points out others as well. This is why you need to read the book. If you're like me, you get plenty enough time sitting in front of the screen here, and a bit of paper in one's hand, a soft couch and something to snack on is a welcome break. And Woodward really is an excellent writer. It's a pleasure to read him, unlike so many others in the field.
If the total theory to solve a problem contains a constitutive assumption, that's part of the total theory to analyze a problem, even if that part came from existing knowledge. Concerning the Mach effect, the theory uses Sciama's 1953 derivation as a foundation, so one may even call it Woodward/Sciama/Mach.
Again, since there is so much concern in this thread about what a given total theory should be called, I will strive from now on to use the term "W theory".
No recent ... theory attached to a name has been built solely by the person whose name is attached to it.
I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?
Well, count me with Jaffe at MIT: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/Reading%20Material/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf
<<In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence
that the zero-point energies of quantum fields are ‘‘real.’’ On the contrary, Casimir effects can be
formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are
relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between
parallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero>>
I do not think that the Casimir force is related to negative mass. The "all other modes being excluded" explanation is Casimir's. It works for flat plates but it doesn't work for several other geometries.
The vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever.I'm sorry, but this is not true. Virtual particles do not gravitate. If the proposed virtual particles did gravitate, their mass added to our universe would have prevented its expansion from the start, and would currently cause it to collapse. This is why most physicists don't buy the ZPF and QVF conjectures, because they're based upon zero mass virtual particles but then expect those particles to transfer momentum, which is a violation of EEP as stated above.
I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?
Well, count me with Jaffe at MIT: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/Reading%20Material/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf
<<In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence
that the zero-point energies of quantum fields are ‘‘real.’’ On the contrary, Casimir effects can be
formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are
relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between
parallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero>>
I do not think that the Casimir force is related to negative mass. The "all other modes being excluded" explanation is Casimir's. It works for flat plates but it doesn't work for several other geometries.
Yeah I'm hearing you and I'm enjoying the discussion but I have to add that if the fine structure constant were to approach 0, electromagnetism itself would collapse. The fine structure constant is dependent of the permeability and permittivity of free space and C. C depends on vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. Thus free space has its own impedance. The QED vacuum is diamagnetic. This:
http://www.mpl.mpg.de/en/institute/news/news/article/a-link-between-particle-physics-and-maxwells-equations.html
Whether speaking classically or quantumly, they are EXACTLY the same thing described in different ways. QM just adds probability and locality to the mix. And yes, quoting the paper "Casimir effects can be
formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are
relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents," is exactly right. The vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever. The only difference is their probability and ubiquity because of that. The are near the ground state of the universe and consequently have a very low probability of being detected except by some of the modes like the ones near the compton wavelength of electrons which slightly influence their energy levels. Other effects too. A fleeting particle with a low probability is the same as saying a nano degree of a wave. The fine structure constant would never be 0 and the paper shows a dependence between Casimir and the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant is quantum anyway, so basically they are further marrying classical and quantum. Who is to say the casimir effect can't be the result of BOTH classical and quantum boundary conditions. It seems unwise to limit it in such a way described.
I want to clarify that negative mass doesn't necessarily mean <0 mass, which would be <0 energy, which would be <absolute zero temperature. Just negative with respect to the established vacuum energy of the universe.
The vacuum fields/particles are exactly the same as the "real" ones, they interact the same, no difference whatsoever.I'm sorry, but this is not true. Virtual particles do not gravitate. If the proposed virtual particles did gravitate, their mass added to our universe would have prevented its expansion from the start, and would currently cause it to collapse. This is why most physicists don't buy the ZPF and QVF conjectures, because they're based upon zero mass virtual particles but then expect those particles to transfer momentum, which is a violation of EEP as stated above.
Virtual particles are just an accounting mechanism. There' no reason to suppose they exist at all and Casimir effect can be explained without them. Indeed it has been for decades.
However, if you want the primary text for ZPF physics written by true believers, you want this:
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Propulsion-Progress-Astronautics-Aeronautics/dp/1563479567/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412356998&sr=8-1&keywords=AIAA+Davis+Millis
Bondi's arguments (see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265704#msg1265704 ) persuade me that it is extremely unlikely for us to find (or contain if artificially produced) negative mass for the reasons given by Bondi (negative mass would quickly escape off into the universe).So far as I understand it, this is an error that was corrected by Robert Forward. To state again, any permanently negative mass would experience a reverse gravity force away from all normal mass bodies, but it would respond backward to that force because of its reverse inertia.
This is surprisingly complex, but the best analysis came not from Herman Bondi but Robert Forward. You'll find a good treatment of it here, and note the link to Forward's "Diametric Drive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
This is surprisingly complex, but the best analysis came not from Herman Bondi but Robert Forward. You'll find a good treatment of it here, and note the link to Forward's "Diametric Drive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Bondi's analysis is actually the correct one.
Anybody can write stuff in Wikipedia.
As an example, I wrote a whole article, including the mathematical analyses plots here :) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_distribution
really after that lengthy counter argument we get this short response???I edited as follows "Bondi's analysis is correct."
Lower right hand corner of the first page here, you can see the primary source material for this dating back 1/4 century:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23219?journalCode=jpp
Obviously the negative mass is chasing the positive mass. BTW, in case it escaped anyone's notice, for this to work, you need to connect the two masses rigidly, and the force exerted will be gravitic, so you need VERY large masses for this to be practical. Woodward's impulse engine seems to me much more viable in the practical sense and because it too takes advantage of the self-acceleration of negative mass, it can be fantastically efficient.
MET's driven past dm=m tap into this negative mass contribution.
Its been many years since I studied this myself, but I think Forward generally gets credit for the drive concept because he noted the backward inertial contribution first. OTOH, I do recall it being called a "Bondi propeller" as well, so who gets credit for it I'm not certain. Woodward mentions this in his book but doesn't take sides. He just notes that indeed, even physicists neglect the fact the negative inertia reverses the reversed gravity and makes negative mass fall toward rather than away from positive mass.
In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.
They are not claiming that mass, regardless of its elemental particle composition, including electrons, is coming out of the device.
I just want to say that rf is photons.In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.
They are not claiming that mass, regardless of its elemental particle composition, including electrons, is coming out of the device.
Ok,
As far as I can tell then, it simply shouldn't work.
If you're using RF frequencies, then they are transmitting an electron stream, but where is the stream going? Unless they have figured out some way of converting electrons into kenitic energy, I can't with any conventional physics, see how this could work.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775The paper's title: Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir effect. It does not mention Sciama's explanation for inertia.
This paper is compelling in my view. It is written from the point of view of spherical shapes so keep that in mind if you read this. At the conclusion factor in the conical shape of the emdrive and remember the stuff I posted earlier concerning casimir energies and 3d shapes and cavities. Spheres attract externally but repulse internally across a diameter. Cones do the same but scatter because of their asymmetry, causing an imbalance.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775
This paper is compelling in my view. It is written from the point of view of spherical shapes so keep that in mind if you read this. At the conclusion factor in the conical shape of the emdrive and remember the stuff I posted earlier concerning casimir energies and 3d shapes and cavities. Spheres attract externally but repulse internally across a diameter. Cones do the same but scatter because of their asymmetry, causing an imbalance.
You are going to need an extremely high acceleration:Scheme for Detecting Unruth Radiation (Stanford)
Easier to just accelerate a thermometer.
You are going to need an extremely high acceleration:Scheme for Detecting Unruth Radiation (Stanford)
Easier to just accelerate a thermometer.
2.5 × 10^20 m/s^2 corresponds to a temperature of 1 K
for comparison, the Space Shuttle acceleration was only 29 m/s^2
and/or an extremely precise thermometer....
You are going to need an extremely high acceleration:Scheme for Detecting Unruth Radiation (Stanford)
Easier to just accelerate a thermometer.
2.5 × 10^20 m/s^2 corresponds to a temperature of 1 K
for comparison, the Space Shuttle acceleration was only 29 m/s^2
and/or an extremely precise thermometer....
I agree. Thanks for the math.
You are going to need an extremely high acceleration:Scheme for Detecting Unruth Radiation (Stanford)
Easier to just accelerate a thermometer.
2.5 × 10^20 m/s^2 corresponds to a temperature of 1 K
for comparison, the Space Shuttle acceleration was only 29 m/s^2
and/or an extremely precise thermometer....
with the most precise thermometer you may be able to measure to a precision of ~10 X 10^(-9) of a degree K.
For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the negative mass.
Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object.[citation needed] However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.
This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. If the masses are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, then the momentum of the system remains zero if they both travel together and accelerate together, no matter what their speed:
And equivalently for the kinetic energy :
Forward extended Bondi's analysis to additional cases, and showed that even if the two masses m(-) and m(+) are not the same, the conservation laws remain unbroken. This is true even when relativistic effects are considered, so long as inertial mass, not rest mass, is equal to gravitational mass.
This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[2] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like-charges and repulsive for opposite charges.
Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.
...Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.Or another way to show to people that negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.
Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.
Given what I've researched today (linked to earlier) I'm predicting it is easier to accelerate a conductive cone (pointy end first) than a sphere under very high energy conditions and acceleration. I think that under normal every day conditions the effect would be insignificant. Both internal and external boundary conditions are important to emdrive. Seems logical to me that the Nasa test article would produce more thrust while rotated pointy end up than down due to acceleration of gravity, barely. I need help formalizing this. Prove me wrong.An interesting test:
Given what I've researched today (linked to earlier) I'm predicting it is easier to accelerate a conductive cone (pointy end first) than a sphere under very high energy conditions and acceleration. I think that under normal every day conditions the effect would be insignificant. Both internal and external boundary conditions are important to emdrive. Seems logical to me that the Nasa test article would produce more thrust while rotated pointy end up than down due to acceleration of gravity, barely. I need help formalizing this. Prove me wrong.
Already did. In earlier post. I suggested PVDF is better.Here:
Given what I've researched today (linked to earlier) I'm predicting it is easier to accelerate a conductive cone (pointy end first) than a sphere under very high energy conditions and acceleration. I think that under normal every day conditions the effect would be insignificant. Both internal and external boundary conditions are important to emdrive. Seems logical to me that the Nasa test article would produce more thrust while rotated pointy end up than down due to acceleration of gravity, barely. I need help formalizing this. Prove me wrong.
Another test:
the Cannae drive is shaped like a pillbox (see picture). It is symmetric except for the dielectric resonator being installed in the long pipe side.
Can you predict thrust for the Cannae drive?
Already did. In earlier post. I suggested PVDF is better.Here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243723#msg1243723
and here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243735#msg1243735
Already did. In earlier post. I suggested PVDF is better.Here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243723#msg1243723
and here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243735#msg1243735
You mean
Polyvinylidene difluoride (it is yet another thermoplastic fluoropolymer).
Why do you like it? Because of its high piezoelectric effect compared to PTFE ? It has a negative d33 value (it will compress instead of expand when exposed to an electric field). It is anisotropic (crystalline)
Or because of its heat resistance? Or something else?
Is there a phase you prefer? alpha , beta , or gamma phases ?
Given what I've researched today (linked to earlier) I'm predicting it is easier to accelerate a conductive cone (pointy end first) than a sphere under very high energy conditions and acceleration. I think that under normal every day conditions the effect would be insignificant. Both internal and external boundary conditions are important to emdrive. Seems logical to me that the Nasa test article would produce more thrust while rotated pointy end up than down due to acceleration of gravity, barely. I need help formalizing this. Prove me wrong.
Another test:
the Cannae drive is shaped like a pillbox (see picture). It is symmetric except for the dielectric resonator being installed in the long pipe side.
Can you predict thrust for the Cannae drive?
1) What do you make of the comment from the AviationWeek/etc. reporter that said he had an e-mail from Shawyer saying that Shawyer doesn't use any dielectric? (Shawyer started with ferrites, then switched to dielectric polymers, now he says he removed them, not clear whether he has nothing or went back to ferrites)Already did. In earlier post. I suggested PVDF is better.Here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243723#msg1243723
and here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1243735#msg1243735
You mean
Polyvinylidene difluoride (it is yet another thermoplastic fluoropolymer).
Why do you like it? Because of its high piezoelectric effect compared to PTFE ? It has a negative d33 value (it will compress instead of expand when exposed to an electric field). It is anisotropic (crystalline)
Or because of its heat resistance? Or something else?
Is there a phase you prefer? alpha , beta , or gamma phases ?
I was wanting to use large 1x2 meter sheets layered together to store energy for electric cars or something. I abandoned it when I learned that it has a low Curie temperature. But it is highly polarizable and ferroelectric. I was also trying to tie it in with Abraham-Minkowski.
Interesting, but how about energy from other universes?
Gravitation hasn't been shown to communicate outside its local spacetime curvature or even proven it is field theoretic. No gravity waves. Einstein said it was local curvature in spacetime. No ripples to communicate via in spacetime have been found. Find one gravity wave and gravitational Inertia will work. Even non locally across the cosmos because phase velocities are superluminal. Gravity is a how not a why. I'm surprised Feynman invented mathematical time travel to shoehorn that view of Inertia. This is fun.
Also wmap has shown a lumpy cosmos with a dipole anisotropy. Here at home we are dominated by the mass of a planet moon and star and a supermassive blackhole, none of which contribute to any inertial dipole moments.
I invited him. I hope he gets over here. His credentials and willingness to communicate leveraging the Internet are awesome.
...Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.Or another way to show to people that negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.
We can still enjoy it virtually in science-fiction plots :)
...Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.Or another way to show to people that negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.
We can still enjoy it virtually in science-fiction plots :)
Aren't negative mass what is called tachyons and always moving >c, or am I mixing two different concepts ?
Mmm, that could allow for the existence of negative mass but preventing divergent instabilities (forever chasing...) since both couldn't interfere for long time...
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?They are very much related as I think you know. Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past). Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?They are very much related as I think you know. Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past). Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.
And the reason you asked is ?................
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
VERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
VERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?They are very much related as I think you know. Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past). Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.
And the reason you asked is ?................
Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong. I'm torn if causality and information are really conjugate variable pairs in the spirit of symmetry in Noether's theorem/or are they thermodynamic. The internet isn't helping me much.
This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. My head hurts. Information/Matter/Energy keep coming back to haunt me and I'm certain they are unified and conserved together somehow. Like how and gates run hotter than or gates. These ideas come full circle.
And the reason you asked is ?................
Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong...
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
VERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.
If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley it all becomes clear.
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.
Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.
Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
I think Bondi and Forward would both say that yes, since this system self-accelerates, it could be strapped to a flywheel and used to generate electricity, but the electricity is not free. I'm not sure who showed the math first, it may have been Woodward; but generally, the accounting is done by the rest of the universe being accelerated in its expansion. Basically, when you harvest gravinertial momentum, you are stealing momentum from the future of the universe. This is why Tom Mayhood, when he was Woodward's master's student back in the 90's, posted on the door of the lab "Tomorrow's Momentum Today".For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the negative mass.
Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object.[citation needed] However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.
This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. If the masses are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, then the momentum of the system remains zero if they both travel together and accelerate together, no matter what their speed:
And equivalently for the kinetic energy :
Forward extended Bondi's analysis to additional cases, and showed that even if the two masses m(-) and m(+) are not the same, the conservation laws remain unbroken. This is true even when relativistic effects are considered, so long as inertial mass, not rest mass, is equal to gravitational mass.
This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[2] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like-charges and repulsive for opposite charges.
Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.
mm, from your understanding (or maybe stated by Forward himself ?) such a diametric drive is a cheap energy generator ? Not free as total mass-energy would be kept constant at 0, but cheap as locally unlimited steady power source.
If such arrangement can accelerate, surely it can push at no acceleration (no ?) : push at constant speed (relative to a massive ground) can create energy. Make it on a circular track around the earth for instance, store the recovered energy : this mass equivalent output of this generator must be compensated by an increase (in absolute value) of the negative mass that is chasing the positive one ? Or the positive mass decreased ? What that theory would have to say as to how mass is kept constant overall in this thought experiment ? I suspect this leads us to a possibility of a device that can forever radiate both negative and positive mass, the later could be converted to energy while the former would just be let free to escape far away. Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.
.....This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. ...Concerning Wolfram's "A new kind of science," do you use Wolfram's Mathematica ? I use Mathematica a lot since version 1, was quite happy with version 9. Disappointed with all the bugs in initial version 10. They just came out with a patch for version 10, and I'm testing it now, while I continue to use my version 9 programs for my work.
I didn't want to quibble with Dr. Rodel when he made this kind of statement the other day, but I would point out this seems to confuse the differences between a constitutive equation, which describes properties of a specific material for instance, and a constitutive relation, which can before general. The statement that solid bulk mass stores energy in its interatomic bonds that changes under deformation is to the best of my knowledge true of all solids. It is in fact a property of solids. And there is no onus on a theoretician to measure this in order to form a proper generalization or induction. Once one understands the mechanism, one can be perfectly justified in inferring that mechanism operates for every member of its class, namely solids. What one can't do, is form an actual equation with specific quantities, because these are unique to the materials themselves. But it's quite fair game to say solids experience delta internal energy during deformation. That or you'd have to throw out inductive reasoning from science, which I for one am not willing to do.Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
VERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.
If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear.
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.
Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.
Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
Gravity is a how not a why.
I marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off thebellpillbox because it makes no difference.
Maybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?
The internet isn't helping me much.
This problem is related to a wholeothernother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.
...why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.
I'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.
A circular stream of tachyons... my brain hurts, any contradictions with causality?
...negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.
You have your own mixologist?
People going to Mass.
I use information theory for my business in the stock market. ... There are no conservation laws in finance. People make irrational decisions.
Mathematica
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.I didn't want to quibble with Dr. Rodel when he made this kind of statement the other day, but I would point out this seems to confuse the differences between a constitutive equation, which describes properties of a specific material for instance, and a constitutive relation, which can before general. The statement that solid bulk mass stores energy in its interatomic bonds that changes under deformation is to the best of my knowledge true of all solids. It is in fact a property of solids. And there is no onus on a theoretician to measure this in order to form a proper generalization or induction. Once one understands the mechanism, one can be perfectly justified in inferring that mechanism operates for every member of its class, namely solids. What one can't do, is form an actual equation with specific quantities, because these are unique to the materials themselves. But it's quite fair game to say solids experience delta internal energy during deformation. That or you'd have to throw out inductive reasoning from science, which I for one am not willing to do.Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
VERY nice and exhaustively done ! Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?
There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.
If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear.
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured. The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.
Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions. Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.
Minkowski uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalbergWow !
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.All definitions are arbitrary. They are mere conventions. According to the convention in English usage today. Solids are firm and stable in shape, do not include fluids and liquids and thus undergo internal energy changes under deformation. You may call this arbitrary to stipulate, but stipulate we do. Please let me know of you discover some exception to this convention.
Is glass a solid?
How about polymers? are polymers solid?
Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.
What is a glass transition?
How about rubber? is rubber a solid?
How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.
Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?
Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.All definitions are arbitrary. They are mere conventions. According to the convention in English usage today. Solids are firm and stable in shape, do not include fluids and liquids and thus undergo internal energy changes under deformation. You may call this arbitrary to stipulate, but stipulate we do. Please let me know of you discover some exception to this convention.
Is glass a solid?
How about polymers? are polymers solid?
Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.
What is a glass transition?
How about rubber? is rubber a solid?
How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.
Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?
Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalberg
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system.Actually it does, by definition. E=mc^2. When you put joules into a cap, it weighs more. It's just that c^2 is such a large number we would normally not notice the delta mass, but indeed delta there is. This is the whole concept behind internal energy.
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalbergWow !
The Majorana fermion may have been finally found, after 77 years !
So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. You're being obtuse to no point. My point was that the issue of "constitutive relation" is not a proscription against making general statements. There is no doubt anyone can precise enough to make a general statement difficult or invalid in some way, but that is not the kind of example under consideration. After all, Woodward only uses perovskite crystals.
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system.Actually it does, by definition. E=mc^2. When you put joules into a cap, it weighs more. It's just that c^2 is such a large number we would normally not notice the delta mass, but indeed delta there is. This is the whole concept behind internal energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
This is the point: this is a thread about "EM Drive Developments". We are interested in the EM Drive experimental results of Shawyer, NASA Eagleworks, the Chinese University (Prof. Juan Yang), etc., and their possible theoretical explanations.So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. You're being obtuse to no point. My point was that the issue of "constitutive relation" is not a proscription against making general statements. There is no doubt anyone can precise enough to make a general statement difficult or invalid in some way, but that is not the kind of example under consideration. After all, Woodward only uses perovskite crystals.
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
...
Assuming Crammer is right in how to steer a wormhole
...
If the theories you sponsor are relevant to this thread, please show us by using the theories you sponsor to perform calculations that can throw light on the nature of the above-mentioned experimental results.
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
Help me visualize this pls.
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer...
Assuming Crammer is right in how to steer a wormhole
...
@ronstahl
Does some actually have a theory for steering a wormhole?
OK, so according to your definition (a definition that I don't agree with from my R&D background in analysis of materials, but let's use it for your argument) <<Polymers are mixtures. Parts are solid and parts are fluid. Cured mostly yes, uncured mostly no. >>, since the dielectrics used in the NASA Eagleworks experiments are thermoplastics (that obviously are not crosslinked and not capable of being "cured" like thermosets), they are not solids according to you. Therefore according to your definition your theory is not capable of dealing with these dielectric materials.If the theories you sponsor are relevant to this thread, please show us by using the theories you sponsor to perform calculations that can throw light on the nature of the above-mentioned experimental results.
IMHO, it is a mistake to make predictions of things like thrust, because there are far too many loose variables involved. For instance, Woodward has never known what is the percentage of binder in any of his dielectrics, so there's no way to know just how much active mass there is in the thruster. One can get around this to some degree, by using the k of the compound, but one is still left with several of these kinds of loose variables. Capacitance that changes with temperature and the inductance that needs to be changed to z-match it, lack of thermal stability, changing electrical impedance with temperature that changes current and power in, even dielectric decay which can be very pronounced in short periods of time, etc.
No one who does this work makes predictions for good reasons. Dr. White has traditionally been very free with his postdictions, but these always come after the data. All he's doing is fitting his model to the data, which is a worthless enterprise, IMHO. I've corrected him on this on numerous occasions and he continues to claim to make predictions when in fact, he does not.
You can do things like parametric studies, where when you have thrust you then change a single variable, and look to see if an effect like thrust scales with that variable (voltage, frequency, etc.), but that is about the best one should hope for so far as "prediction". Even this is dicey since none of these proof of science iterations is capable of continuous thrust yet. For this reason I have said, we will do the best proof of science demonstrations when we are doing proof of technology demonstrations. We need first of all to see these things provided with thermal stability so they can be run continuously. This is just doing good science.
So far as my involvement in this discussion, as it is a discussion about the possible explanations for supposed thrust found in these resonators, and as I have 7 years experience with them, and as I am familiar with the kinds of issues that often go overlooked when considering thrust from M-E, like the 1/4 wave v. 1/2 wave issue; I think I can make a real contribution here without using mathematica.
So putting on the "what-if" hat, if Majorana fermions can appear on a superconducting surface, can they appear on a dielectric surface using the topical insulator analogy, oscillate, and radiate axions to provide thrust ?
Edit: at a 2D surface there is the possibility of a non-linear oscillation and thereby frequency multiplication (pretty far fetched, Eh ?)
Help me visualize this pls.
OK
http://www.theory.tifr.res.in/~hbar/PDF/ti.pdf
then if the teflon surface has the typical "telomer sticking up" structure w/ the monomers aligning in 2D "layers" (parallel monomer stacks")
So, the image is now of a multilayer which may have enough (luck) as to act as a topological insulator in which Majorana fermions can form and be driven by the RF energy input.
If things get that far there's a chance they would radiate axions (maybe even coherently w/ the photon directon ???
Told you it was a far-fetched chain of events.
Therefore, until you notify me otherwise, my understanding from the above is that your theory is not capable of predicting thrust for the above mentioned EM drives. Thank you.I explained this to you ten pages back. Did you miss the memo? I'll tell you again: Woodward's theory may or may not be able to explain thrusts from the EM drives, depending upon how the dielectric is placed inside the resonator. If the field on the dielectric will generate an unbalanced mechanical action due to piezo or electrostrictive coefficients, then it is possible these devices are producing thrust due to M-E physics. Specifically, since the thrust from these devices vanishes when the dielectric is removed, and since it is pronounced during the on/off switching transients, there is good reason to believe these are acting as poorly designed Mach Effect Thrusters. However, regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET.
...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
_______
PS: concerning the axionic dark matter explanation we still have to hear from @frobnicat on his warning that it maybe several orders of magnitude off the measurements. I also have a concern due to some of the estimates made for the density of dark matter expected around our planet (being too low to explain the measurements), but that is an unsettled area of research.
....@frobnicat
At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper (http://inspirehep.net/record/878672/files/arXiv%3A1011.6323.pdf), maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m² csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36 (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectron-volt)/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.
With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s ???
Pow = .5 mflow Vej² = :D = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.
...
2
down vote
According to Constraints on Dark Matter in the Solar System the following upper limits have been placed on dark matter in the solar system, based upon orbital motion of bodies in the solar system:
At the radius of Earth's orbit: 1.4×10 −19 g/cm 3
At the radius of Mars's orbit: 1.4×10 −20 g/cm 3
At the radius of Saturn's orbit: 1.1×10 −20 g/cm 3
According to Local Density of Dark Matter, the density of dark matter at the Sun's location in the galaxy is 0.43GeV/cm 3 or 7.7×10 −25 g/cm 3
Quote
2
down vote
According to Constraints on Dark Matter in the Solar System the following upper limits have been placed on dark matter in the solar system, based upon orbital motion of bodies in the solar system:
At the radius of Earth's orbit: 1.4×10 −19 g/cm 3
At the radius of Mars's orbit: 1.4×10 −20 g/cm 3
At the radius of Saturn's orbit: 1.1×10 −20 g/cm 3
According to Local Density of Dark Matter, the density of dark matter at the Sun's location in the galaxy is 0.43GeV/cm 3 or 7.7×10 −25 g/cm 3
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5534)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3670 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3670)
....
At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper (http://inspirehep.net/record/878672/files/arXiv%3A1011.6323.pdf), maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m² csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36 (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectron-volt)/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.
With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s ???
Pow = .5 mflow Vej² = :D = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.
...
So @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate !
***there is also the question about the square cross section, previously posted by @aero ***
So now we are now much closer to the ballpark
Not much time to write now, but situation:QuoteSo @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate !
***there is also the question about the square cross section, previously posted by @aero ***
So now we are now much closer to the ballpark
So 'microwave photon created dark matter axioms' are now a leading candidate for an explanation of the physics behind the Eagleworks thruster? Looking for clarity here. The revised Dark Matter numbers appear...close(?) to what is required, anyhow.
Also, monumentally stupid, maybe, but I'll ask anyhow. Even a superficial surface looksee into Dark Matter reveals...informed speculation(?)...of a whole zoo of Dark Matter particles. Maybe some of them have a bigger 'kick' than others?
So @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate
question about the cross section,
QuoteSo @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate
question about the cross section,
I have no idea how the cross section should be estimated. I followed frobnicat's calculations but used the area of the small end of the truncated frustum thruster, which is about 0.044 m^2, and the density number above.
I calculate mflow= 1.55786E-12 kg/s compared to the earlier value of 4.5e-18 kg/s.
Of course I'm not even sure frobnicat was considering the truncated frustum thruster, he may be considering the Cannae device.
@frobnicat
What is the .01m² csection that you refer to?
Maybe you told us the definition of terms before but I didn't find them in the last 20 pages, yesterday.
I wonder, because that equals 100 cm^2 or a square about 4 inches on a side and I don't recognize that dimension wrt the thruster cavity.
Took a while to find this again.The NASA Eagleworks report shows that the resonant mode shape of operation is more important than the Q factor
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Havn't been able to find the resonant formula I was looking for, but some interesting things in the old radar handbook. The only point of interest for axion interaction in this setup is that surface effects can change the geometric cross-section from -12db to +28db in the optical region where wavelength is small compared to size. The response of a bulk dielectric is noisy but only a few db around geometric area.If there is "no real surprise about the proper mode" shape being important, then we have to rethink the importance of the cavity.
Edit: no real surprise about the proper mode being important.
Took a while to find this again.The NASA Eagleworks report shows that the resonant mode of operation is more important than the Q factor
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
<<B. Tapered Cavity RF Evaluation and Testing, First TM211 mode
Figures 18 and 19 chronicle the activities surrounding a series of five test runs at 1932.6 MHz corresponding to the first TM211 mode. In this test configuration, the VNA system indicated a quality factor of ~7320, and the difference of power forward and power reflected as reported by the power meters was indicated to be ~16.92 watts as a result of manual tuning to maximize the power difference. The (net) peak thrust observed for this tested configuration was 116 micronewtons and the (net) mean thrust over the five runs was 91.2 micronewtons.>>
<<C. Tapered Cavity RF Evaluation and Testing, Second TM211 mode
COMSOL® analysis indicates that there are two TM211 modes within a couple of MHz of one another for the as-built tapered thruster. The higher frequency TM211 mode has a much higher predicted quality factor (32,125), but considerably lower thrust to power performance (5 micronewtons per watt). The tapered RF system was tuned and operated at this mode for evaluation on the low thrust torsion pendulum. The measured quality factor was 18,100 with a power-forward/power-reflected difference of 16.74 watts and the average measured thrust was 50.1 micronewtons. With an input power of 16.74 watts, correcting for the quality factor, the predicted thrust was 47 micronewtons.>>
Unfortunately, the NASA report only shows the frequencies, but it does not show the mode shapes. One cannot tell why a frequency of only a couple of MHz higher has a Q more than 4 times higher but a thrust force half as much as the lower frequency. It would be nice to have a picture of the mode actual mode shapes (as shown in the reference submitted by Mulletron http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html for a different geometry) to tell what is the difference in the mode shapes: what gets excited in the cavity that makes such a big difference.
Or is the thrust force (twice higher) at the 2 MHz lower frequency not really due to the mode shape but is it due to something happening in the dielectric resonator and/or coupling with something (dark matter for example)?
COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magnetic
http://www.theory.tifr.res.in/~hbar/PDF/ti.pdf
You know, before we blame [anyone] for bringing [another] theory here...
Propeller/slow wind : power of the device is used to accelerate DM particles.
http://space.gotnewswire.com/news/particle-antiparticle-scientists-make-strange-discovery-capitalbergWow !
The Majorana fermion may have been finally found, after 77 years !
For there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Gravity is a how not a why.QuoteTwo points for Gryffindor on that one.If we knew how gravity really worked, we'd all have hovercars. I just want my darn hovercar and hoverboard already. We have 1 year left!
Still, isn't it a property of matter? If it should be a property, then the question is, how does it work. If not a property, then I don't know the question to ask.I marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off thebellpillbox because it makes no difference.QuoteThen what's the function of the "pillbox" after all? It would seem that the very geometry of the apparatus is not conducive to maximizing the anomalous thrust.I think both the cannae and tapered cavity were derived by inventors who had no idea how it worked, just that it worked. The pillbox and the slots are evidence of that. It doesn't matter how it works to crank out a cool gizmo that does neat stuff that makes people like us write 100 page forums. It takes knowing why to optimize it and make it take us to the stars. Unless we brute force it with high power/energy/superconductors and have it work but work like s#@t.Maybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.QuoteI'd like you to expand on that idea a little bit. Sound is at least metaphysically fundamental on one level, and physically all around us on another. Plus, it can be used to levitate or manipulate objects in certain environments. One question I would ask, is, at what frequency does sound no longer exist? Both high end and low end.I picture sound just like any other particle/wave situation. It is much easier to work with too. Sound recently has been show to have particle behaviors. Phonons. Could there be a neat casimir effect too when in a sound proof room? Probably not, just thinking of impossible stuff.Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?QuoteThere is some kind of connection between information and causality.I agree. Seriously, and AND logic gate is a transducer from information to heat. And no I don't mean like how a computer heats up, that happens too but that isn't where I'm going. That is the most exciting thing I have ever read. It is backed up by conservation of information in black holes too!
This is my intuition. The obvious, extreme interpretation of that connection, from a pragmatic standpoint, should it be confirmed, would be teleportation.The internet isn't helping me much.
This problem is related to a wholeothernother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.QuoteFixed that for ya.Neat, wish I understood that. I really am very interested in genetics, but not the beauty of the double helix. I should be.
The problem that I had with Wolfram's book is that he has to assume that there is a preexisting "matrix", and that there has to be sufficient time for his single celled spreadsheet (Or whatever it's called) to create a universe. It's a Godelian problem, I'd say. That was my takehome from the book.
As an aside, a related problem, in my mind, would be the apparent irreducible complexity of the DNA molecule. One faction insists on the faith that random matter, immediately upon it's creation at the big bang, embarks on evolution, which can only and inevitably, in the one universe that we witness, results in DNA and intelligent life. This, despite there being no possible mechanism nor sufficient time to so evolve from randomness....why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.QuoteWhat I bin sayin'. Start with Sciama '53.I've been trying to break Sciama all day and I'm not smart enough.QuoteI'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.
Thank you. What I bin askin' for.
At the radius of Earth's orbit: 1.4×10 −19 g/cm 3
that is 7.868x10^4 GeV/cm^3 = 78680 GeV/cm^3....
At about 1Gev/cm^3 (as seen on this seemingly optimistic paper (http://inspirehep.net/record/878672/files/arXiv%3A1011.6323.pdf), maybe more optimistic is possible) and .01m² csection and 250km/s dark flow velocity that is mflow=1e9*1.8e-36 (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectron-volt)/1e-6 * 2.5e5 * 1e-2 = 4.5e-18 kg/s.
With about 45*µN thrusters that yields Vej = F / mflow = 4.5e-5 / 4.5e-18 = 1e12m/s ???
Pow = .5 mflow Vej² = :D = .5 * 4.5e-18 * 1e24 = 2.25 e6 = 2.25MW hence the 6 orders of magnitude boast (more like 5 actually with those numbers) when comparing to 20W power.
...
So @frobnicat used 1Gev/cm^3 which is 78680 times less than this estimate !
***there is also the question about the square cross section, previously posted by @aero ***
So now we are now much closer to the ballpark
For there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?
The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):
COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magnetic
For there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?
The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):
COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magnetic
Sorry about that, I was thinking of Fig. 26, the next generation, where the field intensity is maximized at the dielectric surface.
For there to be 2 TM211 modes that close means the dielectric is splitting the mode. I would guess the higher frequency is from the dielectric surface and the lower from the end wall (but including the dielectric) but the COMSOL diagram would appear to me to be of the higher frequency mode ?
The COMSOL plot is for the LOWER frequency mode (1932.6 MHz) (the mode that has the thrust force 2 times higher):
COMSOL® field plot for 1932.6 MHz, TM211 also shown for reference - red is electric, blue is magnetic
Sorry about that, I was thinking of Fig. 26, the next generation, where the field intensity is maximized at the dielectric surface.
If the dielectric is a lot thicker in the tested cavity the intensity could maximize within the dielectric for the lower frequency mode. I wish they would have shown more diagrams, I don't have access to COMSOL.
Having said that, my Mathematica analysis of the coupled nonlinear differential equations of the inverted pendulum is showing that the NASA Eagleworks results may be due to real thrust.
Gravity is a how not a why.
Two points for Gryffindor on that one....
Hey: Did you just hit the "quote" button by accident? 'Cause there was not an actual response from you.
...Well, it gets pretty close, and it is standard physics as discussed at all major academic institutions.
I think this pretty much discards "naturally occurring DM background in a classical framework" hypothesis as an explanation to even the lower thrust/power positive results.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
Can't do better job at explaining with words analysis of coupled nonlinear differential equations with assumed parameters. Will see if I have a better way to explain it.Having said that, my Mathematica analysis of the coupled nonlinear differential equations of the inverted pendulum is showing that the NASA Eagleworks results may be due to real thrust.
Why? If ya don't mind?
In plain French, Spanish, or Italian. Your choice.
I have never used Mathematica. In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides and I speak in terms of a layman and analyze things as a system and try to deduce patterns logically. I'm not a scientist and I don't do advanced math. I'm trying very hard to not be a crank but I want to be open minded. I see holes in theories which are evident by things like the emdrive. I'm not so full of hubris to just shitcan the whole idea of emdrives because it is taboo. I have no reputation as a famous scientist/professor to worry about. I really don't understand this stuff fully. I have always been a science geek since I was a little kid and science was my thing all through school enough to compete at a state level, but I don't do this at work. I'm trying to figure it out because I believe that while GR is correct, it is not complete until it is unified with QM and I believe the philosophy of science dominant now days, along with the unwillingness to continually test and push the limits of the sacred cows of science, is fundamentally holding us back. And I want a hovercar......This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. ...Concerning Wolfram's "A new kind of science," do you use Wolfram's Mathematica ? I use Mathematica a lot since version 1, was quite happy with version 9. Disappointed with all the bugs in initial version 10. They just came out with a patch for version 10, and I'm testing it now, while I continue to use my version 9 programs for my work.
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
And I want a hovercar.
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?
Having said that, my Mathematica analysis of the coupled nonlinear differential equations of the inverted pendulum is showing that the NASA Eagleworks results may be due to real thrust. However without knowing the actual magnitude of the magnetic damping I am unclear at this point whether and how much is the distortion from the test and how much is real.
The big unknown I have is the magnitude of the magnetic damping. Unfortunately Paul March has stopped communication some time ago. If he could provide the C value for the magnetic damping, it would be very helpful. I would even perhaps be able to confirm that the NASA Eaglewoks results are real.
Propeller/slow wind : power of the device is used to accelerate DM particles.
I would like to read more about this approach.
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
Are you speaking precisely when you say flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips direction of thrust? I know they flipped the whole thing but this is different. If there is any chirality to PTFE, it makes a difference.
So that basically means that, given the scarcity of DM, it is worthless as a reaction mass. But it is better from its energy equivalent content. Harvesting this mass for its energy, and using this energy to power a photon drive,..But the photons need to escape the EM Drive to get propulsion. How are the photons getting out of the drive? Do you see the downstream surface to be porous to photons traveling through it?
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
Well, for the argument, that could also be a neutrino jet, or any light particle with more kinetic energy than rest mass. The photon with a 0 rest mass is just a limit case. Also this is getting convoluted : have to take incoming DM <500km/s, and convert mass content to kinetic energy of collimated ejected relativistic particles that are light enough (otherwise they are less relativistic, and thrust is worse) and wall crossing (neutrinos, X rays). Mmm, you could even do the following : take incoming DM <500km/s, convert mass to energy, and with the energy of 1 million DM particles, accelerate 1 DM particle at relativistic speed.So that basically means that, given the scarcity of DM, it is worthless as a reaction mass. But it is better from its energy equivalent content. Harvesting this mass for its energy, and using this energy to power a photon drive,..But the photons need to escape the EM Drive to get propulsion. How are the photons getting out of the drive? Do you see the downstream surface to be porous to photons traveling through it?
But the photons need to escape the EM Drive to get propulsion. How are the photons getting out of the drive? Do you see the downstream surface to be porous to photons traveling through it?
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
But the photons need to escape the EM Drive to get propulsion. How are the photons getting out of the drive? Do you see the downstream surface to be porous to photons traveling through it?
Earlier I had mentioned that no mass was being expelled. I incorrectly mentioned electrons, and someone pointed out that photons were being produced, AIUI.
Still, nothing comes out of the other end.
Propeller/slow wind : power of the device is used to accelerate DM particles.
I would like to read more about this approach.
Basically, pushing on a slow moving medium (relative to ship) is a good way to get high thrust/power ratio. In a dense medium, the ejection speed to get a given level of thrust (relative to the size of thruster) is low. For instance in air a propeller does a pretty decent thrust with ejection speeds around 100m/s (give or take). The higher the ejection speed, the higher the thrust but also lower efficiency. But still much better than photon rocket (ignoring medium and pushing on "pure energy" from the onboard generator).
Now with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then the fact to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.
So that basically means that, given the scarcity of DM, it is worthless as a reaction mass. But it is better from its energy equivalent content. Harvesting this mass for its energy, and using this energy to power a photon drive, is the better achievable possible use of naturally occurring DM. This is not unlike a Bussard ramjet : treating the medium not as a passive reserve of mass to push on with onboard generator power, but converting a significant part of mass to energy and using this energy to power a fast jet.
And it falls short of explaining the results, unless you took all the most extremely favorable values together, sounds very unlikely to me. So the propeller/slow wind approach, being much worse, 3 orders of magnitude below, is clearly discarded.
Well, for the argument, that could also be a neutrino jet, or any light particle with more kinetic energy than rest mass. The photon with a 0 rest mass is just a limit case. Also this is getting convoluted : have to take incoming DM <500km/s, and convert mass content to kinetic energy of collimated ejected relativistic particles that are light enough (otherwise they are less relativistic, and thrust is worse) and wall crossing (neutrinos, X rays). Mmm, you could even do the following : take incoming DM <500km/s, convert mass to energy, and with the energy of 1 million DM particles, accelerate 1 DM particle at relativistic speed.So that basically means that, given the scarcity of DM, it is worthless as a reaction mass. But it is better from its energy equivalent content. Harvesting this mass for its energy, and using this energy to power a photon drive,..But the photons need to escape the EM Drive to get propulsion. How are the photons getting out of the drive? Do you see the downstream surface to be porous to photons traveling through it?
Would be dark matter powered dark matter jet rocket. Call that a "dark matter ramjet". Unless anyone can point me to previous publication or grant, I hereby take precedence on that concept 8)
All those numbers above that could hypothetically reach the thrust levels of experiments assume the possibility of not only harvesting a huge ratio of DM but also of "burning" DM mass to release energy. Dark matter fusion now, is it advanced enough concept ?
Propeller/slow wind : power of the device is used to accelerate DM particles.
I would like to read more about this approach.
Basically, pushing on a slow moving medium (relative to ship) is a good way to get high thrust/power ratio. In a dense medium, the ejection speed to get a given level of thrust (relative to the size of thruster) is low. For instance in air a propeller does a pretty decent thrust with ejection speeds around 100m/s (give or take). The higher the ejection speed, the higher the thrust but also lower efficiency. ...
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Do you agree "dielectric, is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term" ?
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Do you agree "dielectric, is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term" ?
.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Do you agree "dielectric, is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term" ?
It's the same problem as axion detection in reverse. You need the right combination of field, phase and photons.
There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Do you agree "dielectric, is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term" ?
It's the same problem as axion detection in reverse. You need the right combination of field, phase and photons.
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.
Assume that such effect would exist for discussion purposes
A) what would explain flipping the direction (hence the sign) of the thrust force when flipping orientation
B) what would explain that a microwave frequency of 1932 MHz would have twice the measured thrust force as 1936 MHz, with the Q value being 1/4th as much as with the higher frequency?
There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response.../...
In my job I mostly deal with electronic engineering. I know a lot about radars, communications (satellite mostly), and navigation equipment like gyros. Hence why I have a clue about waveguides ...
.../...
Sorry to skip the rest but, about that, do you know of any possible rectifier effect in dielectrics, that is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term ?QuoteAnd I want a hovercar.
Yeah. So do I. But you know reality doesn't much care about making achievable all what we want ?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Do you agree "dielectric, is acting like a fast switching diode to convert (a fraction of) AC RF energy to a significant DC current term" ?
It's the same problem as axion detection in reverse. You need the right combination of field, phase and photons.
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.
Well here's a math problem for you and that's your strength. You know the frequency 1, you have a graph of the response with ripples intact and a time reference on the graph, the sloppy rectifier I explained to you is a 1/4 wave rectifier. You can figure out every aspect of this thing by knowing frequency and time which are in the paper. I think the ripples are noise. There is the same noise ripple when the device is off.
Well here's a math problem for you and that's your strength. You know the frequency 1, you have a graph of the response with ripples intact and a time reference on the graph, the sloppy rectifier I explained to you is a 1/4 wave rectifier. You can figure out every aspect of this thing by knowing frequency and time which are in the paper. I think the ripples are noise. There is the same noise ripple when the device is off.
I think that the ripples are the dynamic response (due to the mechanical degrees of freedom and their derivatives) of the inverted torsional pendulum which is not completely damped out. I need to have actual damping value supplied by magnetic damping but that's what my model shows. Observe that highest intensity of ripple is actually in response to the application of the "on" impulse (and it decays thereafter) and to the "off" impulse (and it decays thereafter). Clearly dynamics of the pendulum to me.
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok, last one :
my assumption is a small part of RF AC is rectified somewhere, this would be an unwanted effect, no fancy filtering, but the ripples are at RF also, so if a current loop (in the permanent B field) has a DC component + RF ripples, it transfers a force with the same time signature but the varying component is filtered by the mechanical inertia which has time constants many orders of magnitude higher than the variability : so in effect the balance measures only the DC component.
Since @frobnicat is taking a break to "have a life" and reduce his cholesterol :) , I think this is an appropriate moment to recapitulate:
1) Calculation based on Unruth radiation got closest to Shawyer results. Problem: it hasn't been tested for other experimental results. It depends highly on Q value and the "back of the envelope formula" does not include mode shape hence not able to deal well [at this point] with NASA tapered cavity results for 4 MHz lower frequency with 4 times lower Q having 2 times higher thrust force
2) Calculations on dark matter can get close based on extremely optimistic assumptions. Average assumptions put it orders of magnitude off.
3) Coupling of magnetic damping with power cable and with dielectric has not been analyzed at this point where we have numbers: so it is not in the same level of analysis as the the other two above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I introduce another classical physics explanation, not yet investigated (forgive me if my memory is incorrect):
4) Thermal radiation pressure. For several years the Pioneer anomaly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly remained unexplained. Very exotic physics explanations were offered from different camps. Including the Unruth radiation explanation. Bottom line: a finite element analysis from JPL (http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.081103 ) conclusively showed that it was due to Thermal Radiation Pressure. Although we eliminated thermal expansion, shifting of Center of Mass as an explanation, we have not examined thermal radiation pressure. The problem with thermal expansion is that the transient heat response is related to the heat capacity and density of the Teflon, which results in too slow a response (compared to measurements).
Thermal radiation pressure would be related to mode shape, as it is thermal radiation from the walls, and specifically their asymmetry that would be responsible for thrust effect.
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok, last one :
my assumption is a small part of RF AC is rectified somewhere, this would be an unwanted effect, no fancy filtering, but the ripples are at RF also, so if a current loop (in the permanent B field) has a DC component + RF ripples, it transfers a force with the same time signature but the varying component is filtered by the mechanical inertia which has time constants many orders of magnitude higher than the variability : so in effect the balance measures only the DC component.
As I mentioned, you can do a sloppy rectifier by using a filter. Dielectrics are by definition inductive and capacitive. I mentioned RC networks, but maybe LC or RLC network would have been a better choice to put out there because those take advantage of the properties of the dielectric.
...
I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. We did see thermal effects, what I mentioned before about the rising slope over 30 seconds with rf on, then a dropping slope over 30 seconds with rf off.
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
Assume that such effect would exist for discussion purposes
A) what would explain flipping the direction (hence the sign) of the thrust force when flipping orientation
B) what would explain that a microwave frequency of 1932 MHz would have twice the measured thrust force as 1936 MHz, with the Q value being 1/4th as much as with the higher frequency?
Would rather first try to know if it is possible, at what magnitudes, then where and how.
I'm not sure I'm understanding well the design but (anomalous thrust...) the dielectrics are encased in a conductive tube, no ? Don't know if there is some small space or not between dielectric and those walls, don't know if it would make any difference. Surely <<wavelength but near field effects ? Anyhow, if any rectifier effect is present in such a situation as to be the cause of a net thrust in a given thruster's orientation (say, a small DC current loop component somewhere) then reversing the orientation could reverse said thrust (relative to a vertical permanent B component). Details (where, how) must be addressed, but I don't know enough to tackle that more than qualitatively.
B) would imply a square root dependence on Q ? Wouldn't 4 times a Q imply linearly 4 times E and B fields and hypothetically 4 times DC current loops, that is 4 times forces ? Needs to know how non linear would be such rectifier effects (if possible at all).
@Mulletron : what I was asking for was not for a known way to do a proper efficient AC->DC conversion, but rather for an "imperfection" of dielectrics known to generate a small (usually unwanted) DC component. This would be a deviation from the ideal linear behaviour. Non linearity would not be enough, it would require non linearity around 0 E field (that is, non forward/backward symmetrical). It would likely be filed under "unwanted distortions" or "deviations from the ideal" for instance in RF signal processing literature (that I'm not familiar with). Maybe it doesn't exist, or if it exists it is marginal and never or not often mentioned...
Now, come on people, the time I write that there is SEVEN new posts ! And a new one while just writing this very sentence ! Sheesh !
Must do some other business, see you later.
...
I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok, last one :
my assumption is a small part of RF AC is rectified somewhere, this would be an unwanted effect, no fancy filtering, but the ripples are at RF also, so if a current loop (in the permanent B field) has a DC component + RF ripples, it transfers a force with the same time signature but the varying component is filtered by the mechanical inertia which has time constants many orders of magnitude higher than the variability : so in effect the balance measures only the DC component.
As I mentioned, you can do a sloppy rectifier by using a filter. Dielectrics are by definition inductive and capacitive. I mentioned RC networks, but maybe LC or RLC network would have been a better choice to put out there because those take advantage of the properties of the dielectric.
Can the dielectric together with the rest of the system result in a van der Pool oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Pol_oscillator like in a triode ?
Such a circuit produces relaxation oscillations. For a given set of properties the relaxation response looks almost like a rectangular wave
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok, last one :
my assumption is a small part of RF AC is rectified somewhere, this would be an unwanted effect, no fancy filtering, but the ripples are at RF also, so if a current loop (in the permanent B field) has a DC component + RF ripples, it transfers a force with the same time signature but the varying component is filtered by the mechanical inertia which has time constants many orders of magnitude higher than the variability : so in effect the balance measures only the DC component.
As I mentioned, you can do a sloppy rectifier by using a filter. Dielectrics are by definition inductive and capacitive. I mentioned RC networks, but maybe LC or RLC network would have been a better choice to put out there because those take advantage of the properties of the dielectric.
Can the dielectric together with the rest of the system result in a van der Pool oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Pol_oscillator like in a triode ?
Such a circuit produces relaxation oscillations. For a given set of properties the relaxation response looks almost like a rectangular wave
Ok you can use a RC network as a filter (which is done after you go through a half or full wave rectifier normally) to filter out all but the "tops" of the ac sine wave. You would end up with a dc with a LOT of ripple.There is a fair amount of "ripple" in the measured response
Ok, last one :
my assumption is a small part of RF AC is rectified somewhere, this would be an unwanted effect, no fancy filtering, but the ripples are at RF also, so if a current loop (in the permanent B field) has a DC component + RF ripples, it transfers a force with the same time signature but the varying component is filtered by the mechanical inertia which has time constants many orders of magnitude higher than the variability : so in effect the balance measures only the DC component.
As I mentioned, you can do a sloppy rectifier by using a filter. Dielectrics are by definition inductive and capacitive. I mentioned RC networks, but maybe LC or RLC network would have been a better choice to put out there because those take advantage of the properties of the dielectric.
Can the dielectric together with the rest of the system result in a van der Pool oscillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Pol_oscillator like in a triode ?
Such a circuit produces relaxation oscillations. For a given set of properties the relaxation response looks almost like a rectangular wave
http://scholarpedia.org/article/Van_der_Pol_oscillator
You have to engineer a circuit like this. I can't imagine how it would happen by accident.
"To make electrical circuits described by equation (1), active circuit elements with the cubic nonlinear property, i=ϕ(v)=γv3−αv , are required, where i and v are current and voltage, respectively. "
These things sound cool, why don't I see these in pseudorandom number generators? I just realized we brought chaos theory to the table, sheesh.
...
I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..
I agree. I just did a quick calculation. I edited the record accordingly.
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
The calculation? Well I did a calculation based on Teflon about 70+ pages back. I just substituted the copper properties now and replaced the (COMSOL calculated) EF in the Teflon with the EF in the copper. I didn't post the calculations but they are very similar....
I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..
I agree. I just did a quick calculation. I edited the record accordingly.
Where is the record/living document? How did you do it so everyone can share?
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
Mmmm simplest explanations for the measurements for NASA Eagleworks :), let's seeThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
In order from simple to not simple top 6:
1. It doesn't work
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
I edited this >9000 times.
Mmmm simplest explanations for the measurements for NASA Eagleworks :), let's seeThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
In order from simple to not simple top 6:
1. It doesn't work
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
I edited this >9000 times.
1, 2.5 do not explain the measurements
2 I thought you had ruled out heat (too slow)
3 Unruthzpf/casimirMcCulloch (no zpf needs to be involved, that's just an interpretation) rises to the top but has the "Q" problem I discussed
4 I don't recall we discussing that one (De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda )
5 No way that (EM ZPF, Haisch) this is more likely than dark mass :)
4 and 5 are not simple explanations and they have lots of problems
Need more editing and review :) agreed ?
And what happened with interaction between magnetic damping / power cable and dielectric ? Is that really more unlikely than Haisch ?
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers :). Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers :). Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers :). Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.
Yes
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/ (http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/)
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers :). Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.
Yes
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf
What we need is a calculation using this theory that comes close to the measured thrust force. Where is such a calculation?
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/ (http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/)
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/ (http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/)
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.
Inverse Primakov effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0701198
The dark matter candidate . I have to go now. 'Later
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.
What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way.
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
Agreed, but good science also takes time to enable thoughtful responses. Just like thermal effects :)
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
The dark matter candidate . I have to go now. 'Later
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.
What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way.
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you.
The principle is like the political SpaceEx vs ULA lawsuit update thread, which is separate from the discussion thread. the primary benefit would be that the "Living Document" thread, with one author, who would link to pertinent work by the others of your gang of genii as required, would be very short and cogently written.
The links would supply the background knowledge. The second post would be an executive summary of the several theoretical approaches to date. Subsequent posts would elaborate on the pros and cons of each approach, along with current suggestions of experimental apparatus.
This would require much of you, in that, were someone to object to this or that phraseology or terminology, or even propose another approach, they should be honor bound to discuss it with you via PM. If a dissenting voice persists, the "Living Document" could at least say something along the lines of So-and-so disagrees with the "pony to unicorn transition", and link back to this thread for moree info.
The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you. ...
The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.
I don't know how to make that work and not be a mess and take up some poor poster's time. We all have lives to tend to. I'm down for a shared google doc. They have access control and versioning.
http://www.google.com/docs/about/
Well, for the argument, that could also be a neutrino jet, or any light particle with more kinetic energy than rest mass. The photon with a 0 rest mass is just a limit case. Also this is getting convoluted : have to take incoming DM <500km/s, and convert mass content to kinetic energy of collimated ejected relativistic particles that are light enough (otherwise they are less relativistic, and thrust is worse) and wall crossing (neutrinos, X rays). Mmm, you could even do the following : take incoming DM <500km/s, convert mass to energy, and with the energy of 1 million DM particles, accelerate 1 DM particle at relativistic speed.
Would be dark matter powered dark matter jet rocket. Call that a "dark matter ramjet". Unless anyone can point me to previous publication or grant, I hereby take precedence on that concept 8)
On the subject of wall crossing particles, anyone have any ideas on how a particle within the emdrive could be wall crossing at the big end but not the other walls given how it was designed?
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
The fact that operating at a frequency of 1937 MHz has a Q more than 4 times higher but a thrust force 1/2 as much as operating at a frequency of 1933 MHz is extremely problematic for all these inertia theories if they ignore the dielectric:
1) McCulloch (Unruth radiation)
2) the ZPF and Cassimir effect theories
because the frequencies are practically the same (0.3% difference between them) yet the thrust forces differ by a factor of 2. Also the effect is very contrary to Prof. McCulloch 's model which is proportional to Q and inversely proportional to frequency. The thrust at 1937 is 1/2 as much while according to McCulloch's formula should be 4 times as high.
All the ZPF theories have similar problems. This is a death knell for all of them if they ignore the dielectric.
Again, an analysis of this effect needs a consideration of the dielectric thermoplastic. It may be difficult to consider the dielectric thermoplastic effect in all of this (including its nonlinearity), but the data all points in that direction. Einstein said to make things as easy as possible but never simpler than necessary. Any theory that ignores the dielectric cannot explain the results
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
Somebody call NDT!
somebody call the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust ? :)
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
Somebody call NDT!
So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)
Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?
The fact that operating at a frequency of 1937 MHz has a Q more than 4 times higher but a thrust force 1/2 as much as operating at a frequency of 1933 MHz is extremely problematic for all these inertia theories if they ignore the dielectric:
1) McCulloch (Unruth radiation)
2) the ZPF and Cassimir effect theories
because the frequencies are practically the same (0.3% difference between them) yet the thrust forces differ by a factor of 2. Also the effect is very contrary to Prof. McCulloch 's model which is proportional to Q and inversely proportional to frequency. The thrust at 1937 is 1/2 as much while according to McCulloch's formula should be 4 times as high.
All the ZPF theories have similar problems. This is a death knell for all of them if they ignore the dielectric.
Again, an analysis of this effect needs a consideration of the dielectric thermoplastic. It may be difficult to consider the dielectric thermoplastic effect in all of this (including its nonlinearity), but the data all points in that direction. Einstein said to make things as easy as possible but never simpler than necessary. Any theory that ignores the dielectric cannot explain the results
The fact that operating at a frequency of 1937 MHz has a Q more than 4 times higher but a thrust force 1/2 as much as operating at a frequency of 1933 MHz is extremely problematic for all these inertia theories if they ignore the dielectric:
1) McCulloch (Unruth radiation)
2) the ZPF and Cassimir effect theories
because the frequencies are practically the same (0.3% difference between them) yet the thrust forces differ by a factor of 2. Also the effect is very contrary to Prof. McCulloch 's model which is proportional to Q and inversely proportional to frequency. The thrust at 1937 is 1/2 as much while according to McCulloch's formula should be 4 times as high.
All the ZPF theories have similar problems. This is a death knell for all of them if they ignore the dielectric.
Again, an analysis of this effect needs a consideration of the dielectric thermoplastic. It may be difficult to consider the dielectric thermoplastic effect in all of this (including its nonlinearity), but the data all points in that direction. Einstein said to make things as easy as possible but never simpler than necessary. Any theory that ignores the dielectric cannot explain the results
Also this analysis of mode shapes Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html cannot explain the experimental results.
The energy density for both the magnetic and electric fields increase with the frequency. This analysis cannot explain the fact that the thrust would differ by a factor of 2 at frequencies less than 0.3% apart.
Either this is due to:
a) The actual cavity is not rotationally symmetric (the only hint of this is the off center inner circle)
or
b) the effect is not at all due to the mode shape but something to do with the dielectric not that related to mode shape (and even less related to Q )
Based on my experience (I have not done an analysis yet) I favor b) since I cannot justify such huge differences for this geometry based on such a small frequency difference.
There is something important we are missing here
I cannot justify such a huge difference on thrust
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
Somebody call NDT!
So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)
Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?
I never thought I would "like" a thing about dark matter. I have believed two impossible things today.
..Yes you deserve lots of credit for that. There has been an assumption about the cavity and the Q that are completely negated by the experimental results.
Well the Cannae did provide a thrust too, and it isn't shaped like a bell. I previously asserted the pillbox didn't matter, and way way back in my posts, I advised to design the thing instead taking cues from coax cables, and cluster them, because of the Cannae tube. Later I dropped that in favor of clustering cone shapes in a wafer. Maybe I was right the first time.
The fact that operating at a frequency of 1937 MHz has a Q more than 4 times higher but a thrust force 1/2 as much as operating at a frequency of 1933 MHz is extremely problematic for all these inertia theories if they ignore the dielectric:
1) McCulloch (Unruth radiation)
2) the ZPF and Cassimir effect theories
because the frequencies are practically the same (0.3% difference between them) yet the thrust forces differ by a factor of 2. Also the effect is very contrary to Prof. McCulloch 's model which is proportional to Q and inversely proportional to frequency. The thrust at 1937 is 1/2 as much while according to McCulloch's formula should be 4 times as high.
All the ZPF theories have similar problems. This is a death knell for all of them if they ignore the dielectric.
Again, an analysis of this effect needs a consideration of the dielectric thermoplastic. It may be difficult to consider the dielectric thermoplastic effect in all of this (including its nonlinearity), but the data all points in that direction. Einstein said to make things as easy as possible but never simpler than necessary. Any theory that ignores the dielectric cannot explain the results
Also this analysis of mode shapes Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html cannot explain the experimental results.
The energy density for both the magnetic and electric fields increase with the frequency. This analysis cannot explain the fact that the thrust would differ by a factor of 2 at frequencies less than 0.3% apart.
Either this is due to:
a) The actual cavity is not rotationally symmetric (the only hint of this is the off center inner circle)
or
b) the effect is not at all due to the mode shape but something to do with the dielectric not that related to mode shape (and even less related to Q )
Based on my experience (I have not done an analysis yet) I favor b) since I cannot justify such huge differences for this geometry based on such a small frequency difference.
There is something important we are missing here
I cannot justify such a huge difference on thrust
Well the Cannae did provide a thrust too, and it isn't shaped like a bell. I previously asserted the pillbox didn't matter, and way way back in my posts, I advised to design the thing instead taking cues from coax cables, and cluster them, because of the Cannae tube. Later I dropped that in favor of clustering cone shapes in a wafer. Maybe I was right the first time.
Well, the frequency is only a little different but the drive power is also a lot different. So is the energy within the cavity a lot different.
If the energy is coupling with some unknown particle couldn't it be quite sensitive to the rate of change of wave amplitude (frequency and power) within the cavity? So what would the mass of the particle need to be in order for it couple with more strongly in one case than the other? Just throwing it out there.
Well, the frequency is only a little different but the drive power is also a lot different. So is the energy within the cavity a lot different.
If the energy is coupling with some unknown particle couldn't it be quite sensitive to the rate of change of wave amplitude (frequency and power) within the cavity? So what would the mass of the particle need to be in order for it couple with more strongly in one case than the other? Just throwing it out there.
Please help me with more info. I see the input power to be the same 17 watts (see attached table, first two rows). Where is the info that the drive power is a lot different?
Ok I can't sleep so I hopped to polywell to lurk and read this:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2949&start=240#p116102
If this really is Woodward's assumption We can put it to bed. We just discussed this.I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
Also (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...
Now with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then thefactneed [my edit?] to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
At what Hertz frequency does your head hertz ? Or should I ask what does the mode shape look like? :)
Ok I can't sleep so I hopped to polywell to lurk and read this:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2949&start=240#p116102
If this really is Woodward's assumption. We can put it to bed. We just discussed this. I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
...
Using Specific Force (Force/InputPower) is negated by the experimental data. Force/InputPower according to the data is not a linear parameter of the system.
@mulletron the data looks so nonlinear that you might want to reconsider whether the system is acting like a van der Pool oscillator, with the dielectric as a tunnel diode.QuoteUsing Specific Force (Force/InputPower) is negated by the experimental data. Force/InputPower according to the data is not a linear parameter of the system.
That's right. In fact the only linear thing I see in the data is case number verses number of test runs :)
It is even a challenge to identify single valued relationships that might have meaning.
Lurker and former engineer here making first post. ..Welcome to this forum ! :)
An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.
Quote from: ThinkerX link=topic=29276.msg1266791#msg128_An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.
Haha, i almost posted about Mike Brothertons drive from his other book Star Dragon, where they are able to form a singularity and split it in black and a white hole, and somehow (i forgot how) the ship moves along. (John Fornaro had mentioned something about black hole drives)
Btw, dr Brotherton is an astro physicist.
I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
Lurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.
For starters, here is the latest published patent application:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=A)
YBCO superconducting film to line the inner cavity:
http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx (http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx)
3GHz+ signal generators:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0)
Microwave power amplifiers:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0)
The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.
Quote.../...
Would be dark matter powered dark matter jet rocket. Call that a "dark matter ramjet". Unless anyone can point me to previous publication or grant, I hereby take precedence on that concept 8)
An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.
Also (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...
I thought it was all AC. Where's the DC coming from?
4) Of course not. Sonny would never agree to test one of Woodward's designs. All of the ZPFers believe they are in competition with M-E physics. Despite Sonny has had MLT's on the balance at Eagle, he would NEVER run them with AC the way they were designed. The QVF model states these ought to produce thrust when driven with DC, and that is all he checked. IIUC, he got a null result except for the switching transients which ought to produce thrust according to M-E theory.So "White DC vs Woodward AC" if I get it. This DC wasn't clear, indeed, and I wanted to ask before... my assumption is that "DC" is stationary RF signal (not DC strictly speaking, more like RF AC at constant amplitude) and "AC" would be some kind of modulation (amplitude ?) or transient of the RF signal. What are the modulation characteristic from this Woodward's camp AC, amplitude, frequency, shape ? Anyone ?
My long post above puts M-E'ers and ZPF'ers on equal footing.Also (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...
I thought it was all AC. Where's the DC coming from?
From this post :4) Of course not. Sonny would never agree to test one of Woodward's designs. All of the ZPFers believe they are in competition with M-E physics. Despite Sonny has had MLT's on the balance at Eagle, he would NEVER run them with AC the way they were designed. The QVF model states these ought to produce thrust when driven with DC, and that is all he checked. IIUC, he got a null result except for the switching transients which ought to produce thrust according to M-E theory.So "White DC vs Woodward AC" if I get it. This DC wasn't clear, indeed, and I wanted to ask before... my assumption is that "DC" is stationary RF signal (not DC strictly speaking, more like RF AC at constant amplitude) and "AC" would be some kind of modulation (amplitude ?) or transient of the RF signal. What are the modulation characteristic from this Woodward's camp AC, amplitude, frequency, shape ? Anyone ?
Now with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then thefactneed [my edit?] to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.
Having had a propeller beanie as a kid, I hang on to that concept concept. Thanking you again, I continue:.
If it is to be a ramjet, then the intake has to be physically very large. You can't make it out of matter, you'd have to somehow project a field to harvest the DM as you move thru it, and maybe condense it. You'd have to start the ramjet going somehow (boom boom Orion?), and discard that stage when the ramjet starts working.
Anyhow, it would not be pushing on the quantum field, and it would have a tailpipe. I'm thinking you can't suck it up, you have to move thru it.
I'm trying to visualize what a useful spacecraft might look like. Which may be uncomfortably close to speculating about benign wormholes, but hey.
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM, was about RF AC -> DC conversion that could classically explain the results as some DC induced current loops pushing on the damping magnets.
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
Somebody call NDT!
So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)
Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.
It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
My head hertz.
Somebody call NDT!
So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)
Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?
mm, to "raise the state of some" naturally occurring DM is still limited by the very low density overall. A condensate could be useful, compared to a non self interacting medium, as there is some "aerodynamics", pressure waves... What would be the "speed of sound" in such a condensate, if such concept has any meaning for a Bose-Einstein condensate ? If it is much higher than the average speed of the medium then yes it could be like er, you know, air augmented double flow in jet engine, better thrust than what is accelerated primarily. Maybe a factor of 10 or 100 ? I don't see much above that, unless a condensate is like a "rigid plate" and push at one place is spread over a much large volume ?
Personally, from my little calculations above, and given the likely <<1 coupling factors with DM I would still discard any explanation involving naturally occurring DM in a classical framework : not enough to account for even the weakest results at Eagle (and way off the compact drives mN better results from elsewhere).
Charge opposition ?Quote from: frobnicat
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM, was about RF AC -> DC conversion that could classically explain the results as some DC induced current loops pushing on the damping magnets.
Yeah those current loops could influence the damper by virtue of charge opposition, if the thing wasn't grounded properly, and if there wasn't a feedback loop built into the damper. I don't know if either of those things is true. There really isn't enough information to make any further assumptions about this kind of stuff available from the 21 page paper. We're speculating.
With the aide of Mach and his seminal generalized interpretation of the origin of inertial mass, which informed Einstein ...
With the aide of Mach and his seminal generalized interpretation of the origin of inertial mass, which informed Einstein ...
<<With the aide of Mach >> (Ernst)
perhaps
"With the aide of March" (Paul)
we can get the damping value (N s/m) for the NASA Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum experiments.
I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts.
... i was like message boy ...
John Fornaro had mentioned something about black hole drives
its easy
I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy [equivalent rest mass energy, I believe is what he meant] within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
...Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time! ...
The particles inside have a momentum on a gradient.
Another way to think of the inside of the emdrive cavity is to picture it as its own little universe with a slightly modified space manifold, such that there is an asymmetry in parity.
And they really want to equalize, so the thing moves to compensate. Just like McCulloch said.
Boom!
Now I'm going to obsess over the charge component of CP symmetry.
Phew.
I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy [equivalent rest mass energy, I believe is what he meant] within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
From a grammatical standpoint, it's [note spelling] all material.
However, while it may indeed be factual that equivalent rest mass energy and equivalent covalent bond energy may be indifferentiable in numerical principle, that the magnitudes of the energies involved are so divergent; they are most definitely not "immaterial".
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.
Assuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
3 words. RC time constant. DC works too.
You charge the cap then discharge the cap. Do it fast and you have an oscillator and it becomes RLC.
3 words. RC time constant. DC works too.
You charge the cap then discharge the cap. Do it fast and you have an oscillator and it becomes RLC.
I thought that was just on and off with the current always flowing in the same direction.
I would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)
But the problem is the density that is so little that indeed you have to get to a few % of c before mass flow is significant enough to get decent thrust. In this sense this is like a usual ramjet, needs some initial velocity.
Assuming we know how to field capture DM on large spans, that we know how to burn DM.
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...
QuoteRiffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
You're missing the point of the axion approach. The experiments are looking for photons appearing within an oscillating magnetic field by adding energy to theoretical dm axions. These axions were weakly interacting. Until they became photons! Do this within a metal cone and (?if the theories about cosmological derived inertial mass are true) then profit!
... i was like message boy ...
You still don't get it, do ya? Take a weekend trip to AZ, and get a sense of Yuma.
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
there is only one electron in the universe
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?
Solo chiedendo.
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?
Solo chiedendo.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?
I would like to read this:
Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamics
of the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
Can you explain this bolded above in further detail?Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
A better (but longer) worded statement is that rotating the tested article by 180 degrees around a vertical axis, flipped the direction of the measured thrust force so that it now occurred in the opposite direction (resulting in approximately the same absolute magnitude but with opposite sign). Just like rotating a car heading North (in forward drive) by 180 degrees around the vertical axis will make it now head South (when operating in forward drive).Can you explain this bolded above in further detail?Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Bingo!
Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!
And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?
I would like to read this:
Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamics
of the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?
I would like to read this:
Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamics
of the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.
Okay, so they flipped the entire test article. I thought you were saying they had reoriented the dielectric inside the test article.
Flipping the test article does work for isolating any coupling from the power leads, which you had previously been concerned about.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?
I would like to read this:
Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamics
of the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.
A very warm welcome to this forum, Prof. McCulloch :)
... i was like message boy ...
You still don't get it, do ya? Take a weekend trip to AZ, and get a sense of Yuma.
there is only one electron in the universe
And it's mine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr1IA8Vnw0A
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?
Solo chiedendo.
Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo :)
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?
Solo chiedendo.
Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo :)
There is no way to say that with an arbitrary perspective, nevertheless. The design intent is a 45 degree light cone. Looking for cad errors isn't the important thing here.
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?
Solo chiedendo.
Your pic ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1266842#msg1266842 ) doesn't look like a 45 degree cone either. You give me the material, and I'm on a roll today. Solo dicendo :)
There is no way to say that with an arbitrary perspective, nevertheless. The design intent is a 45 degree light cone. Looking for cad errors isn't the important thing here.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not "looking" for CD errors. And I get that about perspective. Still, it looked like a 60 degree cone.
As you were.
Okay, so they flipped the entire test article. I thought you were saying they had reoriented the dielectric inside the test article.The coupling is very concerning because the Eagleworks report admits that the effect of the magnetic dampening interacting with the field of the power cable gives a signal of about ~25% of their measurements. It affects their baseline in an erratic manner and they try to subtract its effect as a linear influence (therefore not taking into account any nonlinearity). Since the Eagleworks data is also very nonlinear (for example the case where increasing the input power by a factor or 6 results in a decrease of the measured thrust of 10%) it is useful to further clarify this coupling effect.
Flipping the test article does work for isolating any coupling from the power leads, which you had previously been concerned about.
Lurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.
For starters, here is the latest published patent application:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20130206&CC=GB&NR=2493361A&KC=A)
YBCO superconducting film to line the inner cavity:
http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx (http://www.mtixtl.com/YBCO100nm-film-SrTiO3-101005.aspx)
3GHz+ signal generators:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.X3ghz+signal+generator&_nkw=3ghz+signal+generator&_sacat=0)
Microwave power amplifiers:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=microwave+signal+amplifier&_from=R40|R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrowave+power+amplifier&_nkw=microwave+power+amplifier&_sacat=0)
The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.
Trip to Home Depot in order? Like it.
why do you think that flipping the test article would eliminate the effect of the magnetic damper with the power lead and the tested drive?Paul helped design the Eagle balance based upon lessons learned with Woodward's ARC Lite balance. That balance was specifically designed so one could physically reorient the thruster without reorienting the power leads to it, so that if they were coupling, that coupling would not also flip--hence isolating the spurious from the actual thrust. I can only presume Paul kept that protocol. I haven't seen the detailed explanations of the Eagle balance that have been so public with Woodward's work, but Paul knows the value of that particular practice.
why do you think that flipping the test article would eliminate the effect of the magnetic damper with the power lead and the tested drive?Paul helped design the Eagle balance based upon lessons learned with Woodward's ARC Lite balance. That balance was specifically designed so one could physically reorient the thruster without reorienting the power leads to it, so that if they were coupling, that coupling would not also flip--hence isolating the spurious from the actual thrust. I can only presume Paul kept that protocol. I haven't seen the detailed explanations of the Eagle balance that have been so public with Woodward's work, but Paul knows the value of that particular practice.
Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.thanks.
Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.
Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
As way of background to @Mulletron's question, this is the excerpt from the report (p.14):Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.
Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
Indeed on pages 10, 11, and 14. Dummy loads are mentioned. 10, 11 for Cannae. 14 for Emdrive. I gather that they used pretty darn good controls as experimentalist and this wasn't their first rodeo. They had lessons learned from previous campaigns. I do have issues with the seemingly small number of test campaigns, but I concede that it takes time to setup and run carefully. I have to bring up the fact that dummy loads by their very essence, convert rf to heat. How was the waste heat isolated? If, for instance, the waste heat of the dummy load were contributing to impulse EXACTLY the same as the test article, because the dominant effect was heat radiation, the dummy load null test would be invalid. So where was the dummy load? I can tell you from my own experience that dummy loads get very very hot.
Also, yes you are right, if the rf mode is setup where the standing wave is at minimum E, but max I at the boundary, it would be a dummy load and dump the rf as heat.
As way of background to @Mulletron's question, this is the excerpt from the report (p.14):Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.
Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
Indeed on pages 10, 11, and 14. Dummy loads are mentioned. 10, 11 for Cannae. 14 for Emdrive. I gather that they used pretty darn good controls as experimentalist and this wasn't their first rodeo. They had lessons learned from previous campaigns. I do have issues with the seemingly small number of test campaigns, but I concede that it takes time to setup and run carefully. I have to bring up the fact that dummy loads by their very essence, convert rf to heat. How was the waste heat isolated? If, for instance, the waste heat of the dummy load were contributing to impulse EXACTLY the same as the test article, because the dominant effect was heat radiation, the dummy load null test would be invalid. So where was the dummy load? I can tell you from my own experience that dummy loads get very very hot.
Also, yes you are right, if the rf mode is setup where the standing wave is at minimum E, but max I at the boundary, it would be a dummy load and dump the rf as heat.
<<The net force is calculated by accounting for the null force present in the system. Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.>>
and Fig. 20 caption:
<<Figure 20. Null Test on Torsion Pendulum – average null force is 9.6 micronewtons due to 5.6A DC current in power cable (routes power from liquid metal contacts to RF amplifier; interacts with magnetic damper system)>>
and see attached picture Fig. 13 RF Resistive Load mounted on torsion pendulum
...Well, these are some of the reasons why I have been bringing this up. But there are more, there are also magneto-thermo mechanical and dynamic aspects to this coupling as well. That is why the classical set-up of Cavendish has been used to measure gravitational inverse-square law and the Casimir force in classical experiments and that's why Brito et al used a Cavendish type of setup with oil damping that falsified their inverted flexure beam experiments.
The dummy load was inside! Processing.......
Okay It wasn't elucidated that I can see, but in order to derive the 9.6 micronewton null force, you would have to take into account the thrust from the test article first, subtract the thrust (if any from the dummy load, which takes into account a lot of variables, including non linearaties of the heat produced by the dummy load itself coupled with the geometry of the test chamber. AND this is assuming the dummy load impulse effects were less than the test article, otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?).You know what? This all sounds like BS because 1, we don't have enough info and 2 the effects are way small. I'm about to abandon this level of critical analysis of the paper because there are way too many assumptions based on too little info. The emdrive's supposed thrust is so close to the noise floor, that this way of analyzing it is not effective. We're gonna have to wait and see what other people do.
...Well, these are some of the reasons why I have been bringing this up. But there are more, there are also magneto-thermo mechanical and dynamic aspects to this coupling as well. That is why the classical set-up of Cavendish has been used to measure gravitational inverse-square law and the Casimir force in classical experiments and that's why Brito et al used a Cavendish type of setup with oil damping that falsified their inverted flexure beam experiments.
The dummy load was inside! Processing.......
Okay It wasn't elucidated that I can see, but in order to derive the 9.6 micronewton null force, you would have to take into account the thrust from the test article first, subtract the thrust (if any from the dummy load, which takes into account a lot of variables, including non linearaties of the heat produced by the dummy load itself coupled with the geometry of the test chamber. AND this is assuming the dummy load impulse effects were less than the test article, otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?).You know what? This all sounds like BS because 1, we don't have enough info and 2 the effects are way small. I'm about to abandon this level of critical analysis of the paper because there are way too many assumptions based on too little info. The emdrive's supposed thrust is so close to the noise floor, that this way of analyzing it is not effective. We're gonna have to wait and see what other people do.
I understand why Dr. White's team went this way: they wanted to have the setup to be small enough to fit inside their vacuum chamber. This is the inverted pendulum they had. They did not have access to one as for example designed by Prof. Martinez-Sanchez at MIT to eliminate mode coupling between swinging and torsional modes.
Fine, we have to live with this: these are the experimental results we have and we need to take these issues into account in order to assess their validity. So, we continue as we have been doing, we have made a lot of progress in analyzing this, and we should continue.
So, Ron's comments and answers concerning Mulletron's and my questions would still be appreciated, because the better we understand this coupling the better we can assess the significance of the results.
Guys, you are analyzing EagleWorks' set-up to death. I can understand why we need clean data to see how the force actually behaves with power, frequency, Q, dielectric, ... but don't overlook the fact that Shayer and Ling also claim results. I don't know their test set-ups but I doubt that the error modes were common to the EagleWorks set-up.
In other words, "Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees!" :)
Both. The MLT's only generate thrusts in the uN's. The MET's in the mN. I'd expect the next gen using PMN should produce far more thrust, but unless he's added some thermal stability, it will just be impulses as he sweeps through the resonant frequency, so far less impressive than one would like. PMN only has its Colossal Dielectric Constant (CDC) of about 20,000 within a 2*k bandwidth, and only that high when it is sintered in a lead oxide atmosphere to avoid the pyrochlore phase of the compound, and I don't think that's how Woodward's stuff was sintered. So it will be disappointing, but still when within it's thermal bandwidth, far better than the PZT he was using.Yes, but to a much lesser degree, and as I said, it is easy to isolate with a dummy load. Woodward's thrusters form a perfect dummy load when the phase angle between the 1w and 2w portions of the signal are moved. At 90* phase thrust is in one direction, and at 270* the other. At 0* and 180* there is no thrust expected, so the thruster itself makes a perfect dummy load.thanks.
Woodward didn't have any coupling with the magnetic dampener.
And what specific kind of "Woodward's thruster" was tested by Woodward et.al. with that setup, the MLT or MET type of thruster?
Okay I made a cad error...
. . .otherwise the dummy load's heat offload would dominate the impulse measured and it would appear thrust is happening, but they got the sign wrong...........(amiright?)
2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.It's okay to say this but I just want to point out that what Woodward is saying is that electrons have an undressed negative mass. This distinction between dressed and undressed is not like between rest and other states of an electron. He gives the history behind the notion of "dressing" electrons and those chapters (6 & 7?) in the book are amongst the best. I am extremely impressed with the complexity of the issue and Woodward's ability as per usual to make it crystal clear. 40 years teaching GR will do that for you.
.... for this level of mastery you generally want to run continuous, not sweep through a "sweet spot", be it resonance,...
His approach has strange consequences to time and reality, but in their theoretical approach it is step back to time we believe we are able to theorize and than confirm our theory by experiment, instead of just believing, like for example string theory
A previous lurker and a newly minted member here. I have been following this topic for some time and just want to throw in a few thoughts I have had, for what they are worth.
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
2) I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). The S11 plot (voltage reflection coefficient at the input) shows this very well. Very, very little RF power is reflected back to the input at 1932.6 MHz. That is to be expected. Any RF-tight enclosure with the same ceramic resonator inside would produce a similar S11 plot. There is no mystery about it. Well, except where does the anomalous force come from?
So, if I understand you correctly you agree that the internal loop will act as an electromagnet, and the DC magnetic field will NOT be shielded by the metal. [I would add that any slowly-varying components of the magnetic field will not be shielded either]
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
I am a little lost because I don't have the paper, but just to clarify: we're here talking about 2 different geometries at once? The truncated cone/Shawyer resonator is powered AC, but the power supply for the resonator is on the balance arm and it is powered by DC? And the other device, similarly? Both have the power supply on the balance arm powered DC and that DC is coupling with the magnetic damping?
It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
It wasn't clear in one of your previous post, AC vs DC, Woodward's devices don't use a modulation of the RF signal, do theyThey haven't in the past though they may in the future. There is reason to suppose interrupting the AC into a pulsed AC signal could significantly enhance the thrust, and this is the subject of Jim's latest patent app.
I would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)
At least I get the Bussard ramjet idea. More or less, you don't have to carry your "oxidiser", but you do have to carry your "fuel". I think.
Quote from: Frobnicat & MulletronTo be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...
No, I got that. I'm just designing that spacecraft which uses the "rectifier effect hypothesis". While you don't need an evacuated glass container for the "tube", there would be a lot of mass, and a large size associated with the spacecraft.
Riffing off of caffeine at the moment, I'd guess that you'd need several families of VonNeuman devices, spread out over a large area, fed material some how, and powered, somehow, in order to build the spacecraft.
Which, to my mind, gets back to wondering briefly, on the BOE, how big would that spacecraft have to be? Both the DM ramjet and the rectifier effect ones.
.../...
Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
.../...
The electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.
... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ...In other words, the only purpose served by the truncated cone shape of the device is to contain the microwave energy within the cavity, is that right?
Hi Ron,2/He is revisiting thinking about these troubles and suggests that reason is not understanding of inertia. He is suggesting that inertia is gravitational influence of whole universe on any mass in it. He is also suggesting that electron rest mass could be negative. These 2 ideas first explain, for example how electron could exist at all. The other consequences, that we could temporarily manipulate inertia and get as reaction push from universe gravitation.It's okay to say this but I just want to point out that what Woodward is saying is that electrons have an undressed negative mass. This distinction between dressed and undressed is not like between rest and other states of an electron. He gives the history behind the notion of "dressing" electrons and those chapters (6 & 7?) in the book are amongst the best. I am extremely impressed with the complexity of the issue and Woodward's ability as per usual to make it crystal clear. 40 years teaching GR will do that for you.
It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:
p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
There, what DC are you talking about ? You mean DC like in a 9V battery, or RF power at 1GHz but constant (unmodulated) ? And if modulated, how should it be modulated, in amplitude, at what freq, what shape ?
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
They are not the same thing in our universe.
Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Also remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.
Rest Mass and Inertial Mass being different
I bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.
I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
So, if I understand you correctly you agree that the internal loop will act as an electromagnet, and the DC magnetic field will NOT be shielded by the metal. [I would add that any slowly-varying components of the magnetic field will not be shielded either]
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps...
We also know that they are using three Neodymium (NdFeB Grade N42) block magnets and they know they have an interaction from the magnetic damper responsible for an acknowledged ~10 microNewton measured artifact and a changing baseline.
(They blame this as resulting from coupling between the magnetic damper and the power cable, though:
<<This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.>> p.14
)
Therefore, there could be an interaction between the DC magnetic field escaping the device, interacting with the magnetic damping field and producing a spurious thrust force that maybe an artifact rather than real thrust ?
In other words, if it is a magnetic artifact, this thing would not propel itself in outer space?
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?
How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?
Thanks again :) great to have you here
... Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). ...
OK, this is great information, but I must ask, how do you know that it is single-sided PCB material? Is that in the report? Is it from your experience? Is it from another report?
How do we know that there is no copper plate behind the PCB material?
Thanks again :) great to have you here
I have used FR4 and recognize the red logos on the bare side. Also the copper side can be seen extending out in one of the photos. It looks like the cone section of the cavity is made from lighter weight FR4, using washer-shaped sections to hold it in shape and strengthen it. Lead-Tin solder is used to solder it all together. The solder line can be seen where the large end cap meets the cone.
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post :)
... The cavity is just a Faraday cage. . ...In other words, the only purpose served by the truncated cone shape of the device is to contain the microwave energy within the cavity, is that right?
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post :)
Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out.
.../...
Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
.../...Quote from: wikipedia microwave cavityThe electromagnetic fields in the cavity are excited via external coupling. An external power source is usually coupled to the cavity by a small aperture, a small wire probe or a loop.[2] External coupling structure has an effect on cavity performance and needs to be considered in the overall analysis.
from there : (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/8.html)
(http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02409.png)
You mean that kind of loop, or just the loop of the RF circuit ? Unless there is a conducting loop, isn't the circuit supposed to be open in DC, that is, the dielectric cavity is the DC isolating cap in the circuit between the coupling stub and the walls ? Wouldn't a loop closed to DC short circuit the polarisation of the output stage of the amplifier if it had no AC coupling (DC blocking) caps ? Could that go unnoticed ?
Otherwise, is there any indication of a conducting loop as the coupling used by "anomalous thrust...", judge Rodal maybe you can state about that ?
Edit : what would be the effect of no loop, stub_in/wall_out DC blocking cap configuration, running at high (near breaking) RF E fields and a DC bias in potential ? Then the dielectric could no longer easily be considered perfect isolator, and this bias in potential would change a lot of things, no more "rectifier effect" (sorry John) to explain a direct current component...
... I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. ...Although several of us have come to a similar conclusion, I would like to explore your reasoning a little further.
How do you know that it has a very high Q resonator inside? (Is it because when they remove it they measure no thrust force?)
How do you know that the resonator is a ceramic? The report mentions a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator (albeit for the Cannae device if my memory serves me correctly). Did I miss the "ceramic" information in the report somewhere. Is this information from another report?
Thank you again for your great post :)
Yes it looks like I'm wrong about that. Only the Cannae device has a 1/4 λ antenna inside the long section, with a ptfe slug. The return loss (S11) measurement shows the resonant frequency of the loop and cavity and that very little of the RF power that goes into the cavity gets reflected out.
So we know that in the NASA Eagleworks tests:
The Cannae device had a PTFE dielectric resonator
The truncated cone ("tapered cavity") also had a dielectric resonator (because they stated that when they took it out they measured no thrust), but we don't know exactly what kind of dielectric material
@zen-in
The dielectric resonators I have seen all used a hard ceramic. PTFE is soft, expands with heat and humidity and so would not be useful as a resonator. PTFE is used as a structural and support element in RF connectors, etc because it is low loss. I suspect some type of ceramic resonator was used in the cone shaped device because the return loss is way down at -49 dB. Cavity filters of similar size are used in radio communications systems to provide selectivity for a desired frequency. The VNA swept waveform looks very similar. However the cavity filters used in radio communications have a 1/4 λ stub inside that can be tuned by turning a screw. This 1/4 λ stub is what makes the cavity so selective. If the cone shaped device was just an empty cavity with a loop drive I don't see how it would be so selective (have a Q = 7300). However returning to my earlier statement about the RF theory of this device: It appears it MUST have some kind of high Q resonator inside. If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
If I'm not gravely mistaken, Woodward's theory is supposed to involve excitation of mass fluctuations much larger than the E/c² you'd calculate from the local electromagnetics, via gravitational interaction with distant matter. It's supposed to conserve momentum via that same interaction.
(Usual caveat: I haven't yet satisfied myself that Woodward's derivation is valid and correctly interpreted. I'm working on it.)They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Also note that the Nordtvedt effect has not been observed, despite multiple attempts.QuoteThey are not the same thing in our universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceQuoteRemember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Perhaps you should rephrase this, because right now it makes no sense.QuoteAlso remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.
That's because this:QuoteRest Mass and Inertial Mass being different
is forbidden by the Einstein Equivalence Principle. A charged capacitor weighs more, but that gives it more inertia, so the increased force of gravity doesn't result in any extra acceleration.QuoteI bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.
Woodward's devices already work. Repeatably, well above the noise floor, in vacuum, with what appear to be rigorous experimental controls, and to within an order of magnitude of a priori thrust predictions.
I know Ron said thrust predictions are not made. He was wrong. There's a fairly recent derivation that includes the bulk acceleration requirement explicitly and contains an assumption or two regarding the properties of the material, and it shows surprisingly good quantitative agreement with experiment.
Though I have the impression that Woodward's group treats this thrust equation more as a curiosity than a falsifiable prediction, because there are still too many loose variables...I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
What exactly do you mean by "verified by experiment"?
And what do you mean by "safe"? You're essentially postulating the opposite of the Nordtvedt effect, and of course a blatant violation of the strong equivalence principle (which BTW Woodward's theory supposedly respects, being based on GR; I haven't yet got my head around how exactly it manages this).
Ron, you said DC couldn't explain the thrust (and Rodal said that was very helpful information). But the DC in this case is being fed into an RF oscillator, which would seem to change the picture a bit, no?Yes. I misunderstood the operation and thought they were talking about the Cannae device which I'm not that familiar with. Seems both resonators are being driven by AC, so both could be using M-E if they both have dielectrics inside.
If that is the case then almost all the RF power is concentrated in this resonator and is not bouncing off any of the walls. The question is how is this resonator excited? That information is missing from the paper.The walls of the cone are indeed the resonator. EM is in a standing wave between the two ends. That is the design Shawyer started with and there's no reason to keep the asymmetry apart from this. Including a dielectric allows one to have higher power densities, so if Sonny is now pretending he can alter the rate of quantum vacuum fluctuation, this could be the issue. And I would note to you, he has made statements this nutty before. When the resonator didn't work back in 2007, he first claimed that the fluctuations had been "choaked off", which is just more malarkey. Vacuum fluctuations do not care how much mass is present.
When Paul was first working with the Shawyer resonator back in 2007, we went through the issues pretty carefully and found that indeed, when there is nothing inside the resonator, it cannot be using M-E physics since there needs to be a mass to fluctuate. Looks though, that they've left the empty resonator design behind since it doesn't work. Odd thing is, both Shawyer and his misunderstanding of "group velocity" and White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the stuff in?..To confuse matters even more, the AviationWeek/WiredUK reporter http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265607#msg1265607) posted here a few pages back that he/she has an e-mail from Shawyer stating that Shawyer no longer uses a dielectric resonator inside his EM drive
I think the mystery meat must be from Boeing. I'm betting what we haven't been hearing about are the results from Hector Serrano and his asymmetric dielectric capacitor thruster. Serrano had his stuff tested at Marshall twice over the years, and couldn't get a response from NASA despite some thrust. (They did however, file for patent on Serrano's design--scumbag NASA folks.) If Serrano eventually got picked up by Boeing, and Boeing sent what they had to Eagleworks, and Sonny was claiming his QVF model explains thrust from yet another thruster, that would explain why they're sticking dielectric inside all the designs.The NASA Eagleworks tests of the Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device show [excerpt from slide 40 of Dr. White's presentation attached below] an impulse (very short -less than 1 sec- response) instead of a steady thrust force. Given
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work.
The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work.
Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum.
If I'm not gravely mistaken, Woodward's theory is supposed to involve excitation of mass fluctuations much larger than the E/c² you'd calculate from the local electromagnetics, via gravitational interaction with distant matter. It's supposed to conserve momentum via that same interaction.
They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Also note that the Nordtvedt effect has not been observed, despite multiple attempts.
They are not the same thing in our universe...
Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!
Perhaps you should rephrase this, because right now it makes no sense.
I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment.
What exactly do you mean by "verified by experiment"?
And what do you mean by "safe"?
The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband.
the theory of this device has something to do with its cone shape. But as an RF device it is a cavity filter. It is also a Faraday cage because the inside is all Cu.
...White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
Okay. Heh! But do read the book. It's a fun read!The Woodward effect is trying to connect electromechanical self energy with inertial mass and gravitational self energy.No offense, but you really should not write these fantastically long posts devoted to critiquing a theory you haven't read. You have no way to know whether what you're criticizing is actual theory. I can tell you, all of your comments about conservation are completely wrong, and you would know this if you had read the book. You should not be arguing that Woodward is supposedly trying to do this or that, when you have not read his work.
I find it is best to try and break people's theories and find better ones. Then try to break those too. Not to fall in love with an idea that might not work, and hinder progress.
So lets define clear terms and differences between them:
...
Do gluons need an environment in order to have mass? kinda but no, no because of precise language (Bill Clinton method)
...
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
So we have to create a whole new universe within our real universe with slightly modified rules so we can get some work done by modifying inertia. This is what the shape of the emdrive does. It doesn't shield gravity and make the gravitational effects of inertia and more of less strong within the cavity. It gives the small percentage left, the .0000???? left a boost. So when we fire photons through the thing from small to large end, they gain inertial mass across the length of the cavity. Normally this would be equaled out and canceled in our universe because spacetime is symmetrical. But in the tubes universe, spacetime is not symmetrical. There is a bias.
I'm lost. They're powering with <2Ghz. How are they getting millimeter waves (30-300Ghz) and if that's what they wanted, why would they not just use a millimeter wave amp? I've sent Paul links to dozens of them over the years....White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths.
Well they wrote a lengthy report with lots of pictures of a vacuum chamber, description of a vacuum chamber and in the end they did not conduct the experiments in the vacuum chamber [and their explanation is because of the electrolytic capacitors?]. Maybe eventually they were planning to go over 30 GHz using a different amplifier ?I'm lost. They're powering with <2Ghz. How are they getting millimeter waves (30-300Ghz) and if that's what they wanted, why would they not just use a millimeter wave amp? I've sent Paul links to dozens of them over the years....White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths.
To I would note that very few materials have ionic responses in the millimeter wave range. So there wouldn't be much if any bulk acceleration at these frequencies.
...White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths. Since he is using both a cavity and the dielectric resonator, he must have been unsure as to which wavelength was the important one to resonate. Similarly in the detection for axions in the ADMX experiment it was not clear at what wavelength they will find axions. They started the ADMX experiment at longer wavelengths and now they are exploring shorter wavelengths.
Yes, not clear what was in their mind. Just like they wrote a lengthy report with lots of pictures of a vacuum chamber, description of a vacuum chamber and in the end they did not conduct the experiments in the vacuum chamber [and their explanation is because of the electrolytic capacitors?]....White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths. Since he is using both a cavity and the dielectric resonator, he must have been unsure as to which wavelength was the important one to resonate. Similarly in the detection for axions in the ADMX experiment it was not clear at what wavelength they will find axions. They started the ADMX experiment at longer wavelengths and now they are exploring shorter wavelengths.
Are you thinking 30GHz ?
Question - Is there any way to know the shapes of the standing waves within the cavity, with and without the resonator?See here for a curved truncated cone: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Yes, not clear what was in their mind. Just like they wrote a lengthy report with lots of pictures of a vacuum chamber, description of a vacuum chamber and in the end they did not conduct the experiments in the vacuum chamber [and their explanation is because of the electrolytic capacitors?]....White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths. Since he is using both a cavity and the dielectric resonator, he must have been unsure as to which wavelength was the important one to resonate. Similarly in the detection for axions in the ADMX experiment it was not clear at what wavelength they will find axions. They started the ADMX experiment at longer wavelengths and now they are exploring shorter wavelengths.
Are you thinking 30GHz ?
If the purpose was just to test at room pressure operating conditions they would have been much better off using an oil-damped Cavendish type of balance, yet they started a program with a magnetically damped inverted pendulum that could fit inside their small vacuum chamber. But in the end they did not use their vacuum chamber.
Maybe eventually they were planning to go over 30 GHz using a different amplifier ?
They tried removing the dielectric resonator and perhaps they were surprised (?) to find out they measured no thrust whatsoever. They offer no theoretical explanation for this. It is though, an experimental fact we have to understand and explain: the paramount role of the dielectric resonator at ~2 GHz
Yes, thank you. That must be the explanation. Unfortunately they did not specify the material that was used as a dielectric resonator for the truncated cone. Perhaps we could consider the high likelihood of it being a ceramic, as proposed by @zen-inYes, not clear what was in their mind. Just like they wrote a lengthy report with lots of pictures of a vacuum chamber, description of a vacuum chamber and in the end they did not conduct the experiments in the vacuum chamber [and their explanation is because of the electrolytic capacitors?]....White and his misunderstanding of vacuum fluctuations require nothing inside these resonators. So why are they putting the [dielectric] stuff in?...Very good question. Since Dr. White or his staff are not involved in this thread, let me try an answer for him: they would probably state that the dielectric resonator functions as a resonator for millimeter-wavelength radio waves. At the resonant frequencies, the microwaves form standing waves in the resonator, oscillating with large amplitudes. The resonant frequency is determined by the overall physical dimensions of the resonator and the dielectric constant of the material.
So, he would state that the dielectric resonator functions similarly to the cavity resonator, except that the radio waves are reflected by the large change in permittivity rather than by the conductivity of metal. At millimeter wave frequencies, metal surfaces become lossy reflectors, so dielectric resonators are used at these [shorter wavelength] frequencies. So, effectively Dr.White would state that the dielectric resonator replaces the cavity at these smaller wavelengths. The cavity's purpose is for resonance at the longer wavelengths, and the dielectric resonator is resonance at the millimeter wavelengths. Since he is using both a cavity and the dielectric resonator, he must have been unsure as to which wavelength was the important one to resonate. Similarly in the detection for axions in the ADMX experiment it was not clear at what wavelength they will find axions. They started the ADMX experiment at longer wavelengths and now they are exploring shorter wavelengths.
Are you thinking 30GHz ?
If the purpose was just to test at room pressure operating conditions they would have been much better off using an oil-damped Cavendish type of balance, yet they started a program with a magnetically damped inverted pendulum that could fit inside their small vacuum chamber. But in the end they did not use their vacuum chamber.
Maybe eventually they were planning to go over 30 GHz using a different amplifier ?
They tried removing the dielectric resonator and perhaps they were surprised (?) to find out they measured no thrust whatsoever. They offer no theoretical explanation for this. It is though, an experimental fact we have to understand and explain: the paramount role of the dielectric resonator at ~2 GHz
Dielectrics can have very interesting (weird) responses vs frequency which are caused by individual dipole elements passing through resonance. These are all material related, but in general, the dielectric constants decrease w/ frequency except at these resonance points. Artificial resonators are used to construct metamaterials of engineered characteristics.
Oh, and they aren't necessarily linear.
..And the experiments (see attached) show a very nonlinear response (a 6 fold increase in power input results in a decrease of thrust force of 10%, and an increase in frequency of 0.3% (practically the same frequency) results in 2.5 times higher Q and 1/2 the thrust force).
Dielectrics can have very interesting (weird) responses vs frequency which are caused by individual dipole elements passing through resonance. These are all material related, but in general, the dielectric constants decrease w/ frequency except at these resonance points. Artificial resonators are used to construct metamaterials of engineered characteristics.
Oh, and they aren't necessarily linear.
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks. That's helpful, I think.Question - Is there any way to know the shapes of the standing waves within the cavity, with and without the resonator?See here for a curved truncated cone: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for the cavity itself (not the dielectric resonator)
Observe that the ends, however are not flat in this solution for 1/r not equal to zero. Shawyer's and NASA truncated cone have flat ends with 1/r = 0 (r-> Infinity at ends)
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks, Ron as your post should motivate further reflection on what dielectric material NASA used for the truncated cone. Teflon was an initial assumption (just based on the fact that Teflon was the only dielectric material mentioned in the report, albeit for the Cannae drive). We didn't have your additional arguments.
Let me add another argument: I expect a more nonlinear response from Teflon (PTFE) than from a ceramic, particularly with Teflon exposed to an electric field ~ 45000 Volt/meter [Note this is based on back of the envelope calculations: not too different a field than from the maximum for the Cannae drive, NASA did not give the COMSOL numbers for the truncated cone electric field, particularly at the dielectric resonator]
Interested on what others think about Ron's reasoning above for Teflon instead of a ceramic as the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone.
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks, Ron as your post should motivate further reflection on what dielectric material NASA used for the truncated cone. Teflon was an initial assumption (just based on the fact that Teflon was the only dielectric material mentioned in the report, albeit for the Cannae drive). We didn't have your additional arguments.
Let me add another argument: I expect a more nonlinear response from Teflon (PTFE) than from a ceramic, particularly with Teflon exposed to an electric field ~ 45000 Volt/meter [Note this is based on back of the envelope calculations: not too different a field than from the maximum for the Cannae drive, NASA did not give the COMSOL numbers for the truncated cone electric field, particularly at the dielectric resonator]
Interested on what others think about Ron's reasoning above for Teflon instead of a ceramic as the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700003017.pdf
???
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks, Ron as your post should motivate further reflection on what dielectric material NASA used for the truncated cone. Teflon was an initial assumption (just based on the fact that Teflon was the only dielectric material mentioned in the report, albeit for the Cannae drive). We didn't have your additional arguments.
Let me add another argument: I expect a more nonlinear response from Teflon (PTFE) than from a ceramic, particularly with Teflon exposed to an electric field ~ 45000 Volt/meter [Note this is based on back of the envelope calculations: not too different a field than from the maximum for the Cannae drive, NASA did not give the COMSOL numbers for the truncated cone electric field, particularly at the dielectric resonator]
Interested on what others think about Ron's reasoning above for Teflon instead of a ceramic as the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700003017.pdf
???
Great reference. See page 45 for Teflon. At 2Ghz it starts to get nonlinear, however this is at what amount of electric field and temperature?
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks, Ron as your post should motivate further reflection on what dielectric material NASA used for the truncated cone. Teflon was an initial assumption (just based on the fact that Teflon was the only dielectric material mentioned in the report, albeit for the Cannae drive). We didn't have your additional arguments.
Let me add another argument: I expect a more nonlinear response from Teflon (PTFE) than from a ceramic, particularly with Teflon exposed to an electric field ~ 45000 Volt/meter [Note this is based on back of the envelope calculations: not too different a field than from the maximum for the Cannae drive, NASA did not give the COMSOL numbers for the truncated cone electric field, particularly at the dielectric resonator]
Interested on what others think about Ron's reasoning above for Teflon instead of a ceramic as the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700003017.pdf
???
Great reference. See page 45 for Teflon. At 2Ghz it starts to get nonlinear, however this is at what amount of electric field and temperature?
Look around 30 GHz
I think that's unlikely. Paul has been looking at teflon for along time and probably because he is of the opinion that Woodward's and White's models form different sides of the same coin. Paul believes both Woodward and White are correct. Even though i can't agree, I would note that one logical response to this belief is to stick dielectric into a resonator to test Jim's theory. Sonny would never do this--test Woodward's work--unless he had convinced himself he was testing his own model at the same time. Teflon has a very poor k~2, but it is good up into microwave territory. Most ceramics the k drops off way before. In fact I only know of one that maintains it's high k to about 1 Ghz, and that is single crystal. They are certainly not using that.
Probably just a teflon sheet, though if its there to check Woodward's theory, then it is installed with one side against one of the ends of the resonator chamber and would act in 1/4 wave fashion.
Thanks, Ron as your post should motivate further reflection on what dielectric material NASA used for the truncated cone. Teflon was an initial assumption (just based on the fact that Teflon was the only dielectric material mentioned in the report, albeit for the Cannae drive). We didn't have your additional arguments.
Let me add another argument: I expect a more nonlinear response from Teflon (PTFE) than from a ceramic, particularly with Teflon exposed to an electric field ~ 45000 Volt/meter [Note this is based on back of the envelope calculations: not too different a field than from the maximum for the Cannae drive, NASA did not give the COMSOL numbers for the truncated cone electric field, particularly at the dielectric resonator]
Interested on what others think about Ron's reasoning above for Teflon instead of a ceramic as the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700003017.pdf
???
Great reference. See page 45 for Teflon. At 2Ghz it starts to get nonlinear, however this is at what amount of electric field and temperature?
Look around 30 GHz
OK I'm back to this. Here I attach the graph showing the dielectric properties of Teflon vs frequency.
@notsosureofit : why look at 30GHz if the NASA tests operated at 2 GHz?
I propose the following: just like the glass transition temperature of polymers shift with the WLF equation, the dielectric properties also are a function of temperature and electric field
I'd be very interested to see the piezo and electrostrictive coefficients for this.
...
PS: anyone been able to open p.17 of the report ? (OK 5th time never fails)
Well, on the teflon issue--a quick scan shows PTFE has a piezo coefficient about 2-3 orders below things like PZT, which is about 0.1%. According to this, it also has a good electrostrictive coefficient:But, from my R&D work in polymers, PTFE properties are very dependent on temperature, strain rate, strain, and other variables. It is a thermoplastic, without any cross-linking. As @notsosureofit stated it will have very complicated properties. If it is doped the properties are going to be even more complicated (it will be inhomogenous and if loaded with carbon nannotubes it may become anisotropic if preferentially aligned). It would not be my first choice for an R&D program unless I would have a lab with a dielectrometer, FTIR, DSC, TGA, TMA, DTMA and an MTS to investigate its nonlinear properties as a function of several variables and fully characterize it...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=832050&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F6733%2F18004%2F00832050.pdf%3Farnumber%3D832050
And PTFE is easy to dope, so for example one could use the percolation threshold technique and Schottky Barrier to generate a very large k despite it has a crummy k. Given these, Teflon is not a bad choice for an M-E dielectric.
We don't know if extrinsic contributions to k can be used for M-E generation. The materials science is just not there yet. In fact, what we want to do is use these mechanisms with materials we already know work, to determine more about how M-E is stored. However, given these extrinsic mechanism can store M-E, is is easy to see how it could be used especially at millimeter wave frequencies to get thrust. A simple sinewave is sufficient since the material itself has 1w piezo response and 2w electrostrictive response. If the piezo response is negative, the two will add rather than subtract where they overlap and pronounced effects should be observed. So if this is what Eagle is doing, I suggest dope the PTFE with carbon nanotubes and see if that doesn't jump the thrust several orders magnitude through percolation threshold contribution.
Well, on the teflon issue--a quick scan shows PTFE has a piezo coefficient about 2-3 orders below things like PZT, which is about 0.1%. According to this, it also has a good electrostrictive coefficient:But, from my R&D work in polymers, PTFE properties are very dependent on temperature, strain rate, strain, and other variables. It is a thermoplastic, without any cross-linking. As @notsosureofit stated it will have very complicated properties. If it is doped the properties are going to be even more complicated (it will be inhomogenous and if loaded with carbon nannotubes it may become anisotropic if preferentially aligned). It would not be my first choice for an R&D program unless I would have a lab with a dielectrometer, FTIR, DSC, TGA, TMA, DTMA and an MTS to investigate its nonlinear properties as a function of several variables and fully characterize it...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=832050&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F6733%2F18004%2F00832050.pdf%3Farnumber%3D832050
And PTFE is easy to dope, so for example one could use the percolation threshold technique and Schottky Barrier to generate a very large k despite it has a crummy k. Given these, Teflon is not a bad choice for an M-E dielectric.
We don't know if extrinsic contributions to k can be used for M-E generation. The materials science is just not there yet. In fact, what we want to do is use these mechanisms with materials we already know work, to determine more about how M-E is stored. However, given these extrinsic mechanism can store M-E, is is easy to see how it could be used especially at millimeter wave frequencies to get thrust. A simple sinewave is sufficient since the material itself has 1w piezo response and 2w electrostrictive response. If the piezo response is negative, the two will add rather than subtract where they overlap and pronounced effects should be observed. So if this is what Eagle is doing, I suggest dope the PTFE with carbon nanotubes and see if that doesn't jump the thrust several orders magnitude through percolation threshold contribution.
I have actually investigated the properties of polymers like this versus frequency (like p. 45 of this report) and I know that this tan delta curve (see below) is very dependent on other variables .
Also, there are several qualities of PTFE in the market, who knows what kind of PTFE they actually had.
But, as an empirical, approach, like Edison did so well for investigating materials for the light bulb, I think the idea of "suggest dope the PTFE with carbon nanotubes and see if that doesn't jump the thrust several orders magnitude through percolation threshold contribution." is a very good idea.
The problem is that like Mulletron said, why didn't NASA run more experiments? It looks like it takes a long time to just run a few experiments and there are countless material choices to explore...
...
Those graphs look like they are old and out of date. PTFE is widely used as a substrate in microwave pcbs and other places where its low loss over wide microwave frequencies is required. ..
I attach a graph from http://goo.gl/wv0Tyl showing the mechanical properties (storage modulus E’, loss modulus E’’ and the ratio between these, the mechanical tan delta) of PTFE. A step in the storage modulus was measured at -123°C (onset temperature). This transition, which was not detected by the other methods employed is most probably due to a g-relaxation . Between 19°C (onset) and 39°C (end temperature), a further step of a factor of 3 can be seen in the storage modulus. Please observe that this transition (comprising a change of a factor of 3 in storage modulus occurs at room temperature !!!!! )
Those graphs look like they are old and out of date. PTFE is widely used as a substrate in microwave pcbs and other places where its low loss over wide microwave frequencies is required. I extracted the following graph from this recent paper:
www.radioeng.cz/fulltexts/2012/12_02_0551_0556.pdf
When I have some time I will post some pictures of 900 MHz ceramic resonators. Every cell phone has a few of them inside. Cell phones would not be so slim and lightweight without them. It's possible they are using a 965 MHz ceramic filter in a frequency doubled mode.
The problem is that like Mulletron said, why didn't NASA run more experiments? It looks like it takes a long time to just run a few experiments and there are countless material choices to explore...They probably did, the day after the conference. You know these things are never timed well. They just went out with what they had at the time in order to get some press. When you're raising money for your lab, any press is good press.
You might want to use a URL shortener for that PDF; it's breaking the forum formatting!Thank you @RotoSequence, great suggestion ! :)
I was looking for any evidence that dark matter interacts with RF waves. This leads to considering the red shift as perhaps due to dark matter interaction.
I found one guy who claims that dark matter does not exist, the missing mass is diatomic hydrogen. That was interesting so here is the link.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/ (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/)
I found another guy who claims that light interaction with dark matter does cause the red shift. That was more interesting because he gave some math. Under the constraints of his model, which seem valid for light in interstellar space, he gives the equation:
dp/dt = -H p as the change in momentum, p, of a photon, where H is the Hubble constant equals about 2.2 x 10^-18 per second.
Note that the value of H has been changing and being refined rapidly over the last few years. This value is from about 2013.
The reason this is interesting is because this change in momentum attributed to dark matter implies an equal and opposite change in momentum in the dark matter.
At this point I'm not going to derive the effect that this proposed coupling of RF wave photons and dark matter may have on the thruster cavity. It seems small though.
Here is the link:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.1044.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.1044.pdf)
More importantly:
The movie, black and white, 16mm, introduced a number of things about physics, the most noteworthy being a room full of ping pong balls on loaded mousetraps. Mr. Baez threw in the first ping pong ball to start the chain reaction. It was spectacular. In one of the handful of brilliant moves that I've made here and there in the cosmos, I asked if we could see that part backwards.
And lo, Athena smiled upon me, Mr. Russo granted permission, and the projectionist reversed the chain reaction to the point where the first ball magically flew back into Mr. Baez's hand. The class erupted in applause. I gotta hug from my would be GF at the time.
It's a temporal issue, my good doctor. Time is assymetric.
As Rafiki sez: "Loook harder"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmLn6N_Srw
philosophygasm
Place yourself in intergalactic space...
Anyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia.
In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).
philosophygasm
Not at all sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. As always, assuming the good. ...
First, your retelling of part of the story regarding time's apparent assymetry was very well written. So thank you for that.
Still, many events in the universe are seen as being reversible, particularly on the quantum level.Quote from: MulletronPlace yourself in intergalactic space...
I asked you to show me one particle which is not accelerating, and you can't, because all particles are accelerating somehow...Quote from: MulletronAnyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia.
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1267489#msg1267489)
...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is.
Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken.
If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one? Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur? Third, does it ever have pragmatic application, since the decimal point you mention (.0000000000000000000000000000?????????) is so tiny?
The bottom line distillation of the experimental apparatus is simply that they assert that they can convert electrical energy to forward momentum, somehow taking advantage of the Energy-momentum relation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation
At the same time, as I've hinted at here and there in this thread, I intuitively hold the view that the old Cartesian model of reality (that there were two interacting kinds of substance - mental and physical)>wasis limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm).
Per Bohm, "the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter". Which ties into the Akashic records mentioned earlier; part of a unified theory that I'm working on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_orderQuote from: David BohmIn the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).
Point being twofold: ('Fold'. Get it? I crack myself up sometimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvldYk72hk).)
The EM-drive explanations so far are incomplete. And maybe there's a way to consider time as reversible. There are "hidden" variables still. Hidden in the sense that we don't know about them yet. And third, there may be no practical applications of this technology at all.
An analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g., quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order#Challenges_to_some_generally_prevailing_views)
Veering briefly from the topic at hand: Reason? Who needs it? When it serves survival, yeah. I warn of the dangers of rampant reason and technology. WRT HSF, deconstructive and reductionistic scientificism holds that elective war trumps HSF. "U.S. Consul in São Paulo ... confiscated [Bohm's] passport." Further discussion welcome on the PM channel, particularly if you don't immediately grasp the connection I'm making.
Like I always say:
“It never occurred to me to abandon [my inquiry]. I just continued doing what I wanted to do. It didn’t matter to me whether I would succeed or fail.”
Although it would be nice to get paid...
Finally, I thought Archimedes invented the screw!
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NOSorry but this is just wrong. Look up any defintion of inertial mass or EEP and you'll find that this is not true.
QuoteDo objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NOSorry but this is just wrong. Look up any defintion of inertial mass or EEP and you'll find that this is not true.
The algorithm I put together a few pages back is a thought experiment about what NO acceleration would be like.
Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO
Edit: Left out Turing.
...(see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
As I see it, it is symmetric concerning the photons in the cavity, as relevant to Prof, McCulloch's simplified analysis: the pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end].I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....
As I see it, it is symmetric concerning the photons in the cavity, as relevant to Prof, McCulloch's simplified analysis: the pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end].I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
I also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).
Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.
Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.
The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....
Please instead of just stating "look harder", please point out specifically what is the asymmetry of the pillbox that is relevant to Prof, McCulloch's present simplified analysis. :)
...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well you have to be able to formalize casimir interactions with 3d cavities. Lots of info out there on that....The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry", and I doubt that Prof. McCulloch will be able to work out a formula based on that description, but everybody is free to post in his blog, if you think that's enough to work out a quantitative answer :)
...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry"...
Darth Vader, there is a great disconnect with the force: what Prof. McCulloch can actually calculate and apparently what Vader thinks can be calculated. ;)...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry"...
I think what he means is that the pillbox is symmetrical radially along its axis, but there is no line of symmetry in a plane 90 degrees from the axis.
And it's "looook", not "look".
Darth Vader, there is a great disconnect with the force: what Prof. McCulloch can actually calculate and apparently what Vader thinks can be calculated. ;)...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.
Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry"...
I think what he means is that the pillbox is symmetrical radially along its axis, but there is no line of symmetry in a plane 90 degrees from the axis.
And it's "looook", not "look".
Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Yes, the problem I'm having that the Q from bandwidth implies an exponential decay time constant:
T = c / ( g * pi ) So where is the power going if the cavity is superconductive ?
Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Yes, the problem I'm having that the Q from bandwidth implies an exponential decay time constant:
T = c / ( g * pi ) So where is the power going if the cavity is superconductive ?
Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer
Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.)Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation :)
Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Yes, the problem I'm having that the Q from bandwidth implies an exponential decay time constant:
T = c / ( g * pi ) So where is the power going if the cavity is superconductive ?
Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer
Do you know the mechanism behind this? SC are used for NMR and all sorts of hi-freq things. I may be wrong though...Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Yes, the problem I'm having that the Q from bandwidth implies an exponential decay time constant:
T = c / ( g * pi ) So where is the power going if the cavity is superconductive ?
Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer
One thing about superconductors most people are not aware of is that they do not work very well with AC. There are specially designed configurations used for 60 Hz AC transmission cables, but at higher frequencies it is my understanding that superconductors are unusable. I don't see any way that superconductors could be used to improve this em thruster.
Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.)Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation :)
I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.
Thanks!Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.)Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation :)
I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.
Take another look at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html, Prof. McCulloch has now incorporated the Chinese data, and all the data [Shawyer, China and NASA] is pretty well calculated by McCulloch's formula except for one experiment (out of 3 in the list) by Brady et.al. that I had pointed out is extremely anomalous (they raised the Q by a factor of 2.5 and the force came down to 1/2). The Unruth/McCulloch formula does a great job [compared to everything else that has been offered, and look at this thread we have considered all kinds of stuff]. What is most interesting again is that McCulloch does not use fudge factors or an excessive number of parameters. Actually McCulloch's formula is bare bones: PowerInput, Q, frequency and the geometry: that's all folks. :)
Do you know the mechanism behind this? SC are used for NMR and all sorts of hi-freq things. I may be wrong though...Just a curiosity:
The Q of a perfect superconducting cylindrical cavity of lambda vertical dimension at the earths surface
Q = c^2/ ( g * lambda )
I think.
So maybe Shawyer is on to something w/ his deceleration curve ??
Yes, when one says goodbye to "wordy" explanations and just looks at the math, a number of explanations look very similar:
Force = ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_up) - ( Q* PowerInput / frequency ) * (1/w_down)
= Q * PowerInput /( frequency * CharacteristicLengthA ) - Q * PowerInput /( frequency *CharacteristicLengthB )
= Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedA ) - Q * ( PowerInput / CharacteristicSpeedB )
= Q * PowerInput * (1/ CharacteristicSpeedA - 1 /CharacteristicSpeedB)
Recall that, dimensionally Power = Force * speed
Yes, the problem I'm having that the Q from bandwidth implies an exponential decay time constant:
T = c / ( g * pi ) So where is the power going if the cavity is superconductive ?
Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer
One thing about superconductors most people are not aware of is that they do not work very well with AC. There are specially designed configurations used for 60 Hz AC transmission cables, but at higher frequencies it is my understanding that superconductors are unusable. I don't see any way that superconductors could be used to improve this em thruster.
"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.htmlDidn't help me I'm afraid...
Helped me, sharing.
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?
Please enlighten me.
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?
Please enlighten me.
Destructive interference.
Yes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?
Please enlighten me.
Destructive interference.
Yes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Lol,
At what frequency?
and topology?
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?
Please enlighten me.
Maybe Dr Rodal would know about these things...What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?
Please enlighten me.
I am not an expert in the theory of superconductors. I experiment with high temperature superconductors and I have observed some of their interesting properties. I can't disclose any of my research. However there is a lot of literature available on this subject. All are concerned with VLF AC. If you know of a case were superconductors are used at microwave frequencies I would like to be informed-
https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Erice-2013/Lectures/May3_1_Gomory.ppt
http://www.utwente.nl/tnw/ems/Research/AC%20loss%20Twente%20Press/AC_loss_and_stability_of_superconducting_cables_for_fusion/
http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/26/9/095001/
Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.)Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation :)
I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.
No.Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.)Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum :)
Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
... and comment in the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0
Much obliged and thanks.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation :)
I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.
It was only nuked because there was an already existing thread for it I imagine.
AC losses in superconductors.Not really.
http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/staff/gupta/Summer1968/0511.pdf
Hope this helps.
Mulletron.
I have decided you need to go back to physics school.
Sorry.
We will all welcome you when you get back.
Farewell and good luck!
Quote"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."
This is a hasty generalization.
Take another look at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html, Prof. McCulloch has now incorporated the Chinese data, and all the data [Shawyer, China and NASA] is pretty well calculated by McCulloch's formula except for one experiment (out of 3 in the list) by Brady et.al. that I had pointed out is extremely anomalous (they raised the Q by a factor of 2.5 and the force came down to 1/2). The Unruth/McCulloch formula does a great job [compared to everything else that has been offered, and look at this thread we have considered all kinds of stuff]. What is most interesting again is that McCulloch does not use fudge factors or an excessive number of parameters. Actually McCulloch's formula is bare bones: PowerInput, Q, frequency and the geometry: that's all folks. :)
By his calculation do you mean the simple calculation in McCulloch's blog last page on the EM drives [yes, of course that simple calculation based on PowerInput, Q, frequency and the flat surfaces, only applies to a truncated cone microwave cavity under restrictive assumptions as discussed in his blog] or do you mean McCulloch inertial theory as presented in McCulloch's papers?Take another look at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html, Prof. McCulloch has now incorporated the Chinese data, and all the data [Shawyer, China and NASA] is pretty well calculated by McCulloch's formula except for one experiment (out of 3 in the list) by Brady et.al. that I had pointed out is extremely anomalous (they raised the Q by a factor of 2.5 and the force came down to 1/2). The Unruth/McCulloch formula does a great job [compared to everything else that has been offered, and look at this thread we have considered all kinds of stuff]. What is most interesting again is that McCulloch does not use fudge factors or an excessive number of parameters. Actually McCulloch's formula is bare bones: PowerInput, Q, frequency and the geometry: that's all folks. :)Where does the dielectric requirement come in to his calculation? I don't see it.
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?I don't think anyone really knows the mechanism behind the latest gen 2 HTSC stuff. I think it does work for VHF however. I have never seen any superconducting power equipment for UHF nor microwave. DARPA had a portable HTSC ceramic supercap power storage unit some years ago that went to phase 2 that probably was UHF capable, though they were saying it was for communications. (Yeah, I believe that! They're looking for something to power their battlefield robots, powered exoskeletons, etc.) If you search HTSC VHF at DARPA you'll find what little is left public on the program. Was working with General Atomics I think.
Please enlighten me.
Mulletron.
I have decided you need to go back to physics school.
Sorry.
We will all welcome you when you get back.
Farewell and good luck!
You're asking me questions here. Anyway, it is clear that superconductors break down in the presence of moving magnetic fields.
What kind of magnetic field do you have in the presence of AC?.......MOVING.
Edit:
Now let's play nice.
...Embiggen ?
I will try to embiggen my knowledge further.
Taking a shot at an "axion condensate dark matter" energy to force calculation.
So theory and experiment both give a reduction in "sound speed" in a dilute condensate of ~ 10^-6. So, let's say s = < 300 m/sec, given the assumption that the "axions" "interact" via gravity at c.
Using a rough experimental result of 10W => 50 micronewtons for comparison.
At 300 m/sec, I need to generate 2.5 X 10^22 phonons/sec at a power of 1.5 X 10-2 watts to generate that 50 micronewtons.
So 15 milliwatts out of 10 watts => 0.15% (pretty high)
Edit +10^22 and phonons not photons
Taking a shot at an "axion condensate dark matter" energy to force calculation.
So theory and experiment both give a reduction in "sound speed" in a dilute condensate of ~ 10^-6. So, let's say s = < 300 m/sec, given the assumption that the "axions" "interact" via gravity at c.
Where does it come from this 10^-6 ? specific to Bose Einstein condensates ? Reduction relative to what, the speed of "interactions" (sound ?) without BE condensation ?QuoteUsing a rough experimental result of 10W => 50 micronewtons for comparison.
At 300 m/sec, I need to generate 2.5 X 10^22 phonons/sec at a power of 1.5 X 10-2 watts to generate that 50 micronewtons.
So 15 milliwatts out of 10 watts => 0.15% (pretty high)
Edit +10^22 and phonons not photons
I don't get it, where 2.5e22 comes from ?
Trying to understand the equivalent mass of the quanta you are pushing onto
50e-6 = 300 * mass_1_phonon*2.5e22
kg*m/s² = m/s * kg / s
=> mass_1_phonon = 50e-6 / (300*2.5e22) = 6.7e-30 kg = 3.7MeV why ?
2.5e22 * 6.7e-30 = 1.7e-7 kg/s
( We didn't need to go through the individual phonon mass, it is just 50e-6/300 as mass_flow=force/speed)
Power of a jethaving mass atsending mass from its own speed is 0.5*mass_flow*speed² = 0.5*1.7e-7*300² = 7.5e-3 W
Lost a .5 factor here, but looks like I'm on the right track. You are like pushing on something at a relative speed of 300m/s : pow = force * speed = 1.5e-2 and considering there is no recoil of the medium because it's a "rigid" condensate ? But however rigid it would be, it would still need to have a certain mass : imagine an infinitly rigid slab spanning the solar system but weighing a gram, you couldn't really grab onto it to push efficiently a ship of one ton, unless sending the slab very very fast in the opposite direction.
So you have to "recruit" a mass to push onto at those efficiencies (that is, at this low characteristic speed) and this mass is on the order of 1.7e-7 kg each second. If I recall well, absolute experimentally checked upper bound (not likely) to DM density at earth orbit is about 1E6 GeV /cm^3 = 1.8e-24 kg/m^3
So the mass of DM to be pushed onto must be found on the order of 1e17 m^3, roughly 300km radius sphere.
How is it possible to recruit in 1s the mass of medium to be found in such a volume when the speed of sound
in said medium is 300m/s ?
There is simply not enough naturally occurring DM density to be of practical use, this is from the known gravitational bounds to density, so nothing more to be exploited could hide (in some specific kind of dark matter...)
I know the discussion drifted to other considerations long time ago but I had to destroy that (sorry Notsosureofit, nothing personal, just to close all doors to classical natural DM)
Now I will be attacking Shawyer's derivations.
Following extensive review, no contravention of the laws of the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy has been identified.
.../...
On the other hand, White's approach supposedly predicts thrust from a Shawyer EmDrive, while Woodward's does not. It is generally acknowledged that Shawyer's explanation of his invention makes no sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean the invention itself doesn't work. IIRC multiple parties have reported thrust from EmDrives, and not all of them are in China...
.../...
Most physicists are clueless when it comes to engineering, especially anyone who isn't in experiment. They simply lack the design skills to compete with engineers. Conversely, when an engineer tries to do physics, you often end up with a Roger Shawyer.
Quote"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."
This is a hasty generalization.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif)
...Embiggen ?
I will try to embiggen my knowledge further.
A follow up to JohnFornaro's questions:
1) Q: ""Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO"...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is."
A: You are right, we don't know the true origin of inertia. Lots of people have ideas. I have one too. It is time.
2a) Q: "Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken."
A: How do you figure? We're not breaking any laws here. But if we were, why the slippery slope?
2b) Q: "If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one?"
A: If you change any single property of a consistent universe, is it still the same universe? Or a different universe? I say a different one. Because it has different rules. A universe is defined by its rules.
3) Q: "Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur?"
A: NO, read McCulloch's paper on inertia.
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number, 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 . In fact, it is almost exactly the value needed.
I do note that a drive based on this physics won't be so good much beyond Saturn. The DM mass really tails off with distance from the sun.
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number...
Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...
This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number...
Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...
This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.
I was wondering about all the strike thrus. Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better. Add a "mea culpa" at the end. I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.
It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare. But then I got confused. You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?
Ai chihuahua.
A follow up to JohnFornaro's questions:
1) Q: ""Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO"...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is."
A: You are right, we don't know the true origin of inertia. Lots of people have ideas. I have one too. It is time.
2a) Q: "Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken."
A: How do you figure? We're not breaking any laws here. But if we were, why the slippery slope?
2b) Q: "If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one?"
A: If you change any single property of a consistent universe, is it still the same universe? Or a different universe? I say a different one. Because it has different rules. A universe is defined by its rules.
3) Q: "Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur?"
A: NO, read McCulloch's paper on inertia.
1) Thanks for the engagement. Again, an object or particle with no acceleration has yet to be found. Even at lo, lo, how lo can you go speeds, a massive object has inertia equal to its mass. My objection was that we do not know, and have no evidence that inertia disappears with no acceleration.
My sense is, that you (well, one) can't go wrong by assuming that inertia exists in all frames of reference.
2a&b) You answered "a" with "b". You say it's a different universe, and maybe we're struggling with semantics here. But then you go on to suggest that a "property" in the "new" universe is being changed. We're not talking about the color of paint as a property, we're talking about fundamental properties, which in theory, we cannot change.
Whatever is happening in the copper can obeys the laws of the universe that it is embedded in. No matter how much you embiggen it.
3) Dang. I knew you were going to say that. Will try and find the time to throw an eyeball over it. You all must be able to read at least an order of magnitute faster than I can, and I read so fast that my lips can't keep up.
4) What about Bohm's "implicate order". Do you think it has bearing on this EM-drive and related physics?
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number, 1.8e-24 kg/m^3 . In fact, it is almost exactly the value needed.
I do note that a drive based on this physics won't be so good much beyond Saturn. The DM mass really tails off with distance from the sun.
Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long.
I took a looser upper bound because I thought we would be so far from reaching the necessary mass. You numbers above background galactic DM are more precise (proven ? probable ? possible ? speculative ?). This doesn't tell where this 300m/s from Notsosureofit comes from...
Also, how could you meet DM at such low speed for a long time ? The equation for power of pushing on a medium is dependant on the speed you have in the medium, not the speed of sound of the medium. Unless there is a lump of cold DM orbiting with the earth we would encounter DM at a few km/s even on the ground. This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.
Question - Is there any way to know the shapes of the standing waves within the cavity, with and without the resonator?See here for a curved truncated cone: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
for the cavity itself (not the dielectric resonator)
Observe that the ends, however are not flat in this solution for 1/r not equal to zero. Shawyer's and NASA truncated cone have flat ends with 1/r = 0 (r-> Infinity at ends)
...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end) that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you have an alternative explanation for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end) that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.
Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you have an alternative explanation for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end) that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.
Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Well I still don't see your alternative explanation for how you conserve momentum under McCulloch's assumption. Maybe I need some more coffee to wake up. What I see is that you are not satisfied with the explanation as to what makes it move. The answer to that is simply conservation of momentum.Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you have an alternative explanation for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end) that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.
Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
I just said it. Regardless of if you understand me. Yes.
Listen, if you have an object with a differential of inertia inside of it. How does that make it want to move? How are the conditions inside the cavity communicated (its inertial differences inside, and the state of its particles as a result) with the universe outside of the cavity, so that the thing is compelled to move? It isn't just as simple as "just because it does." There has to be a mechanism for that to happen.
Well I still don't see your alternative explanation for how you conserve momentum under McCulloch's assumption. Maybe I need some more coffee to wake up. What I see is that you are not satisfied with the explanation as to what makes it move. The answer to that is simply conservation of momentum.Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you have an alternative explanation for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end) that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?...McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.
Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
I just said it. Regardless of if you understand me. Yes.
Listen, if you have an object with a differential of inertia inside of it. How does that make it want to move? How are the conditions inside the cavity communicated (its inertial differences inside, and the state of its particles as a result) with the universe outside of the cavity, so that the thing is compelled to move? It isn't just as simple as "just because it does." There has to be a mechanism for that to happen.
It looks like your main problem with McCulloch's theory is what makes it move under his assumptions.
To me that's not the main problem (I find the answer: because of momentum conservation to be sastisfactory).
To me the main problem is why should the microwave cavity copper walls have to act as a Rindler horizon?
...
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.
...
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.
No. That contradicts what Prof. McCulloch wrote:
<<.. what if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon? Well, then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.>>
Prof. McCulloch wrote that his assumption is that the cavity walls are acting like a horizon. That's his assumption.
It looks like you have been working under another assumption than Prof. McCulloch's....
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.
No. That contradicts what Prof. McCulloch wrote:
<<.. what if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon? Well, then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.>>
Prof. McCulloch wrote that his assumption is that the cavity walls are acting like a horizon. That's his assumption.
Would fit between the cavity walls and the Rindler Horizon. Hold on. Finding the sources again.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation
Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation
Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.
What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number...
Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...
This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.
I was wondering about all the strike thrus. Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better. Add a "mea culpa" at the end. I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.
It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare. But then I got confused. You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?
Ai chihuahua.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation
Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.
What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].
Well the Hubble horizon is all around you. Rindler horizon is behind you. You can't see the Hubble horizon behind you through the Rindler horizon. He said that in the forum post I just shared.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf
This paper needs accelerated peer review.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation
Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.
What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].
Well the Hubble horizon is all around you. Rindler horizon is behind you. You can't see the Hubble horizon behind you through the Rindler horizon. He said that in the forum post I just shared.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014_10_01_archive.html <<What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)?>>
... imagine yourself in a black hole. The unruh waves fit within the bounds of the horizon.
His ideas sold me the steak but not the whole cow.OK, but he clearly states that his assumption is that the copper walls are acting as an event horizon, and he gives his reason why:
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html
Not comparable.
The ring and the gyro are 2 physical systems, separate, but in common with the universe.
Emdrive is 2 separate physical systems one inside the other. In series.
Also there is no supercooled rotating anything in emdrive.
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html
Not comparable.
The ring and the gyro are 2 physical systems, separate, but in common with the universe.
Emdrive is 2 separate physical systems one inside the other. In series.
Also there is no supercooled rotating anything in emdrive.
From the link: "causing the gyroscope’s inertial mass to decrease to less than its gravitational mass."
Just noting, all of GR stands on EEP and EEP says that inertial and gravitational mass are always the same. There are weak and strong readings of this, but what Dr. McCulloch is proposing would seem to imply all of GR is wrong, as EEP is wrong. Or am I overstating the case?
I do however appreciate when anyone tries to make sense of Tajmar's findings. It was a big surprise that he got the same readings both with and without the superconducting ring that was supposed to be causing this effect.
I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.
I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3. That is quite a lot more than your number...
Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...
This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.
I was wondering about all the strike thrus. Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better. Add a "mea culpa" at the end. I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.
It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare. But then I got confused. You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?
Ai chihuahua.
http://samos.martech.fsu.edu/chapters/chapters/md.PDF
http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf
Thus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.
The speed of sound largely depends on the absolute temperature of the gas, and not so much due to the enhancement of quantum mechanical effects.
...
The question wasn't asking why it was 0.0022 m/s but why sound moves so slowly (compared to air). We are comparing a low, almost zero, energy medium to normal air. The elephant in the room is temperature. Air is around 300 Kelvin and a BEC has temperatures in the nano kelvin range. As mentioned in [1] paragraph 3, a good estimate for the speed of sound in an ideal gas as a function of temperature is speed=constant*sqrt(Absolute Temperature). Calculating the speed of sound in a BEC using this model I got an answer of the same magnitude as [2].
As far as explosions go, the atoms comprising a BEC are still very cold and even after a shockwave you would expect a relatively slow thermal expansion of the atoms. The way the atoms expansion would be similar to glass shattering into tiny pieces and expanding radially outward, but only very slowly.
GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. . .I don't need to prove you wrong. What you're saying is completely at odds with GR and history, as well as simple observations one can make on wiki. You are simply wrong. All of GR depends upon weak equivalence, and in addition, Einstein's version or EEP, that holds equivalence is velocity and acceleration independent. All of GR requires that inertia and gravitational mass be the same under all conditions, or a preferred frame of reference will emerge.
. . .Prove me wrong.
GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. . .I don't need to prove you wrong. What you're saying is completely at odds with GR and history, as well as simple observations one can make on wiki. You are simply wrong. All of GR depends upon weak equivalence, and in addition, Einstein's version or EEP, that holds equivalence is velocity and acceleration independent. All of GR requires that inertia and gravitational mass be the same under all conditions, or a preferred frame of reference will emerge.
. . .Prove me wrong.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Look it up on Wiki.
Of course, McCulloch's theory needs to satisfy, for example, these tests within the tests's precision:
Researcher Year Method Result
Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel 1832 measure the period of pendulums of different mass but identical length no measurable difference
Loránd Eötvös 1908 measure the torsion on a wire, suspending a balance beam, between two nearly identical masses under the acceleration of gravity and the rotation of the Earth difference is less than 1 part in 109
Roll, Krotkov and Dicke 1964 Torsion balance experiment, dropping aluminum and gold test masses |\eta(\mathrm{Al},\mathrm{Au})|=(1.3\pm1.0)\times10^{-11}[8]
David Scott 1971 Dropped a falcon feather and a hammer at the same time on the Moon no detectable difference (not a rigorous experiment, but very dramatic being the first lunar one[9])
Braginsky and Panov 1971 Torsion balance, aluminum and platinum test masses, measuring acceleration towards the sun difference is less than 1 part in 10^12
Eöt-Wash group 1987– Torsion balance, measuring acceleration of different masses towards the earth, sun and galactic center, using several different kinds of masses \eta(\text{Earth},\text{Be-Ti})=(0.3 \pm 1.8 ) \times 10^{-13}[10]
GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations.First of all thank you for going through the effort to put your ideas into pictorial form. That is very commendable, as it much easier for people to write words.
"The rindler sphere is defined by the boundaries of the cavity *(horizon 1) and the approaching Rindler horizon (horizon 2)."
This new rindler sphere I just described denotes a new rindler sphere. A whole new variable.
There are 2 rindler spheres, well ellipses is more accurate. Squashed spheres then. They share an arc. The one as I drew and the one as I described. I need to add an arc to the drawing.
Thanks!
Edit:
Added pic with changes. Close enough.
It seems evident to me that MIHSC describes only the inertia component of emdrive which then enables Dr. White's ideas of thrust interactions.
Prove me wrong.
Thus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.
GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations.First of all thank you for going through the effort to put your ideas into pictorial form. That is very commendable, as it much easier for people to write words.
"The rindler sphere is defined by the boundaries of the cavity *(horizon 1) and the approaching Rindler horizon (horizon 2)."
This new rindler sphere I just described denotes a new rindler sphere. A whole new variable.
There are 2 rindler spheres, well ellipses is more accurate. Squashed spheres then. They share an arc. The one as I drew and the one as I described. I need to add an arc to the drawing.
Thanks!
Edit:
Added pic with changes. Close enough.
It seems evident to me that MIHSC describes only the inertia component of emdrive which then enables Dr. White's ideas of thrust interactions.
Prove me wrong.
Second, it appears to me that you favor physical (rather than mathematical) explanations. I draw that conclusion from the notes about Casimir attraction, and for you searching for a physical interaction that will ultimately enable the movement. I operate differently, I prefer John von Neumann's mathematical approach to physics. One critical aspect of this approach are conservation laws. I don't interpret the Casimir effect as an attractive force due to the quantum vacuum. What I see in Prof. McCulloch's formulation is the assumption that a finite number of Unruh waves can fit in one or the other surfaces perpendicular to the 1 D direction of motion. Again to me conservation of momentum is a critical law and given a change of inertia, that there must be a force (producing an acceleration) to conserve momentum is a satisfactory explanation. The reason why this looks "unphysical" is because we are all accustomed to EEP: anything that deviates from EEP by its very nature feels unphysical. Explaining the movement as enabling Dr. White's interactions with the Quantum Vacuum (modeled by him as a plasma) may be helpful to you but not to me, I just prefer McCulloch's explanation that it must be acted by a force to conserve momentum. And as difficult as it maybe if forced to dispense with one or the other, I rather dispense with EEP than with conservation of momentum. Of course, one still has to consider that the NASA, Chinese and Shawyer experiments still maybe an experimental artifact and they may not serve as a means of propulsion in outer space.
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.McCulloch is dealing with the inertia of the electrons (in the walls) and the photons within the cavity. His simple formula is a 1 dimensional approximation along the (proposed unidirectional) direction of motion (of the drive's center of mass), with the small and large flat surfaces perpendicular to the direction of motion. The proposed 1-D direction of motion is along the cone's central axis, which is an axis of symmetry.
In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.McCulloch is dealing with the inertia of the electrons (in the walls) and the photons within the cavity. His simple formula is a 1 dimensional approximation along the (proposed unidirectional) direction of motion (of the drive's center of mass), with the small and large flat surfaces perpendicular to the direction of motion.
In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
To posit a rotation as envisioned in the diagram one needs at least a 2-D analysis and propose a reason why the photons in the cavity and the electrons in the copper walls would be executing an overall rotational motion. In general (refer to the wave modes in the cavity, at 2 GHz the modes shapes are not executing such overall rotation but there are rotational cells of smaller scale). If I am not mistaken the rotational cells are such that they are clockwise and counterclockwise like eddies in a fluid, to satisfy the same direction of motion at their common boundary. As such their rotations seem to be self-cancelling.
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.
In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.
In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.
So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.
In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.
I think that wouldn't move it would oscillate on the table. By virtue of the string, conservation of angular momentum. At least emdrive heats the cavity unevenly by virtue of its uneven particle momentums.
That is the way it would work without the variable inertia.
Fc = (inertial mass)*w^2/r.
If inertial mass varies with all else fixed, then force varies.
I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.
I have to accept the risk of coming up with borderline crackpot sounding ideas that make me look bad. But that is what is required to explain new info like the emdrive.QuoteQuoting @Ron
" Given it contradicts Einstein and what we have good reason to suppose is true (EEP and GR), I can't say I think this is going to be a fruitful line of inquiry."
Question:
Can anyone provide any insight to how the dielectric material in the device (seems to) function like a quantum rocket nozzle? I posted some stuff earlier about momentum transfer to virtual particles for clarity. It mentioned chirality, which is what I've been going on about for days now.
The dielectric seems as important to the emdrive, as a nozzle is to a chemical rocket.
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.
Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.
Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?
http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.
Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.
Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?
http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too. Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water. Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.
Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.
Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?
http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too. Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water. Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?
Well the reason why I've been going on about this is that, as I've mentioned, the QED vacuum is diamagnetic. A refresher about diamagnetism is that diamagnetic materials create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field. This knowledge, combined with the ideas in the paper above, excite me.
Assuming a properly oriented PTFE slug in the presence of an rf field who's poynting vector is in the direction of magnetic energy flow (not electrical), combined with knowing the QED vacuum is diamagnetic; I see thrust.
Hasty generalization? Faulty reasoning? Or a lead?
http://books.google.it/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
A very small thrust, in the presence of modified inertia+continuous acceleration=Bingo?
Well, water is weakly diamagnetic too. Let's say one immerses a (EM drive with a PTFE slug) submarine inside the water. Would you expect directional propulsion of the submarine from the diamagnetism of the water surrounding it?
What I would expect is a hydrophobic effect: the water will be repelled away from the magnetic surfaces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoE-udZzcfA
For the sake of personal clarification, what is the expected impact of increasing or decreasing the tapering of the resonance cavity frustum?
If you grok those equations that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole then kudos, can't say more.
Then maybe you can say what 'a' and 'k' stand for in this apparently relevant paper (http://bh.knu.ac.kr/~jchan/paper/2009-PLB-Axion.pdf) :QuoteThus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.
Well, k is the wave number and a is a coefficient (where I would have just used 1/2 as in the simpleminded "perfect" superconducting cavity case)
Great ref by the by. If I can grok it at all it says I should be able to write a 3 PD set of equations for the EM cavity and insert coefficients for a viscous term using the equation of state they give. But, it still looks like the sound speed, etc., has to be experimentally determined from the axion mass. (the 300m/s was the assumption to get a power figure as an example)
And NO, I'm not promising I CAN write those equations (and solve them with the boundary conditions), but I have been in that situation in the dim, very dark past.
The dielectric is clearly visible as a small flat douhgnut (a disk with a central hole) in these pictures of the Electric Field for their future truncated cone. The NASA researchers think that it is best located at the small flat surface.
The dielectric is clearly visible as a small flat douhgnut (a disk with a central hole) in these pictures of the Electric Field for their future truncated cone. The NASA researchers think that it is best located at the small flat surface.
The magnetic field in the truncated cone is in blue Observe that the magnetic field is directed along the axis of revolution of the truncated cone, while the electric field is in red and it circulates along two main cells of different rotational sign, clockwise and counterclockwise:
The magnetic field in the truncated cone is in blue Observe that the magnetic field is directed along the axis of revolution of the truncated cone, while the electric field is in red and it circulates along two main cells of different rotational sign, clockwise and counterclockwise:
Yep you got it. There's your differences in angular and linear momentum too.
The magnetic field in the truncated cone is in blue Observe that the magnetic field is directed along the axis of revolution of the truncated cone, while the electric field is in red and it circulates along two main cells of different rotational sign, clockwise and counterclockwise:
Yep you got it. There's your differences in angular and linear momentum too.
Observe that the magnetic field arrows point away from both surfaces, towards the center of the truncated cone.
The magnetic field in the truncated cone is in blue Observe that the magnetic field is directed along the axis of revolution of the truncated cone, while the electric field is in red and it circulates along two main cells of different rotational sign, clockwise and counterclockwise:
Yep you got it. There's your differences in angular and linear momentum too.
Observe that the magnetic field arrows point away from both surfaces, towards the center of the truncated cone.
They are counter rotation circles in the vertical axis, meeting in the center. The magnetic flux flows like water down a drain, because the whole rf field has a rotation.
This is important:
Please fact check me on this but of the three TM modes on this http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html page; the one closest resembling TM211 would be this one right? At least good enough for a rough model? I think so. Not exactly but close enough because what I'm really interested in are the position of transverse H with respect to Z. The view is of the Z axis running vertically so the blue magnetic X, and Y are just dots and crosses.
I can see how highly frequency dependent and sensitive this mode is, which accounts for the big difference in Q and thrust with just a small change in frequency. Given the small size of the dielectric slug in the vertical axis at the small end, the resonant mode would very easily dip into and out of the dielectric with very small freq changes. Hence the loss of thrust. A COSMOL plot is needed for 1932.6 and 1936.7 to see this. I need to see if the magnetic field lines were in the dielectric more or less with both freqs.
At 1932.6, Q was down but thrust was up. Very telling indeed.
If I'm right, then eureka!
This is important:
Please fact check me on this but of the three TM modes on this http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html page; the one closest resembling TM211 would be this one right? At least good enough for a rough model? I think so. Not exactly but close enough because what I'm really interested in are the position of transverse H with respect to Z. The view is of the Z axis running vertically so the blue magnetic X, and Y are just dots and crosses.
This is important:
Please fact check me on this but of the three TM modes on this http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html page; the one closest resembling TM211 would be this one right? At least good enough for a rough model? I think so. Not exactly but close enough because what I'm really interested in are the position of transverse H with respect to Z. The view is of the Z axis running vertically so the blue magnetic X, and Y are just dots and crosses.
I can see how highly frequency dependent and sensitive this mode is, which accounts for the big difference in Q and thrust with just a small change in frequency. Given the small size of the dielectric slug in the vertical axis at the small end, the resonant mode would very easily dip into and out of the dielectric with very small freq changes. Hence the loss of thrust. A COSMOL plot is needed for 1932.6 and 1936.7 to see this. I need to see if the magnetic field lines were in the dielectric more or less with both freqs.
At 1932.6, Q was down but thrust was up. Very telling indeed.
If I'm right, then eureka!
Answer: none of the modes calculated in the closed-form solution by Greg Egan here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=611555;image)
agree with the modes calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis as presented by Brady et.al. (shown with red arrows in the attachment below).
The first Transverse Electric mode shown by Egan has a single cell along the cone's axis of revolution.
The mode calculated by COMSOL Brady et.al. has two cells along the cone's axis of revolution.
The second Transverse Electric mode shown by Egan has two cells, but they are distributed in a completely different fashion: the smaller cell is closest to the large transverse surface while the mode calculated by COMSOL shows the smaller cell closest to the smaller transverse surface.
It is not clear why this is so. It could be because of the boundary conditions. I have a strong suspicion that the reason is due to the cylinder inside the truncated cone shown in pink red here: (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=611263;image)
When I have time I may model it with Mathematica and see what's going on but I don't have free time to do that during the next couple of weeks.
Yeah Egan's modes are being used as generic representations. I only care about the last number here. Do you see how increasing and decreasing the frequency fills the void of the cavity more or less? That's what I'm getting at. The cells get smaller with higher frequency and change shape. You can't see it exactly without a plot.Sorry, to me they are completely different mode shapes, as I wrote above. Again, I think that the Egan solution is inapplicable mainly because of the pink-red cylinder inside the truncated cone and to a much lesser extent because of the flat surfaces.
This is important:
Please fact check me on this but of the three TM modes on this http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html page; the one closest resembling TM211 would be this one right? At least good enough for a rough model? I think so. Not exactly but close enough because what I'm really interested in are the position of transverse H with respect to Z. The view is of the Z axis running vertically so the blue magnetic X, and Y are just dots and crosses.
I can see how highly frequency dependent and sensitive this mode is, which accounts for the big difference in Q and thrust with just a small change in frequency. Given the small size of the dielectric slug in the vertical axis at the small end, the resonant mode would very easily dip into and out of the dielectric with very small freq changes. Hence the loss of thrust. A COSMOL plot is needed for 1932.6 and 1936.7 to see this. I need to see if the magnetic field lines were in the dielectric more or less with both freqs.
At 1932.6, Q was down but thrust was up. Very telling indeed.
If I'm right, then eureka!
Answer: none of the modes calculated in the closed-form solution by Greg Egan here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=611555;image)
agree with the modes calculated by COMSOL Finite Element analysis as presented by Brady et.al. (shown with red arrows in the attachment below).
The first Transverse Electric mode shown by Egan has a single cell along the cone's axis of revolution.
The mode calculated by COMSOL Brady et.al. has two cells along the cone's axis of revolution.
The second Transverse Electric mode shown by Egan has two cells, but they are distributed in a completely different fashion: the smaller cell is closest to the large transverse surface while the mode calculated by COMSOL shows the smaller cell closest to the smaller transverse surface.
It is not clear why this is so. It could be because of the boundary conditions. I have a strong suspicion that the reason is due to the cylinder inside the truncated cone shown in pink red here: (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=611263;image)
When I have time I may model it with Mathematica and see what's going on but I don't have free time to do that during the next couple of weeks.
If the smll end is filled w/ dielectric that would make the difference, the optical length is greater for the same physical length
It is incorrect to think that it is a truncated cone on the inside. Everything shows that it is a cylinder on one end joined to a truncated cone on the other end. The mode shapes for such a geometric body are different than the mode shapes for a truncated cone as modeled by Egan.
And I don't think that the cylinder is there by accident. Somebody thought this through.
I made up an illustration showing the general character of dark matter thrust resulting from the varying inertia within the cavity. I need to have some data before putting numbers to the thrust, maybe someone else is curious enough to do that. I'm happy that the thrust points in the right direction. See the text on my drawing for my explanation.The question is, physically, what is responsible for the change in inertial mass of the particle in the picture ?
I made up an illustration showing the general character of dark matter thrust resulting from the varying inertia within the cavity. I need to have some data before putting numbers to the thrust, maybe someone else is curious enough to do that. I'm happy that the thrust points in the right direction. See the text on my drawing for my explanation.The question is, physically, what is responsible for the change in inertial mass of the particle in the picture ?
OKI made up an illustration showing the general character of dark matter thrust resulting from the varying inertia within the cavity. I need to have some data before putting numbers to the thrust, maybe someone else is curious enough to do that. I'm happy that the thrust points in the right direction. See the text on my drawing for my explanation.The question is, physically, what is responsible for the change in inertial mass of the particle in the picture ?
I thought Prof. M had already figured that out?
It is incorrect to think that it is a truncated cone on the inside. Everything shows that it is a cylinder on one end joined to a truncated cone on the other end. The mode shapes for such a geometric body are different than the mode shapes for a truncated cone as modeled by Egan.
And I don't think that the cylinder is there by accident. Somebody thought this through.
Yeah it looks like they put a can inside the cone for some reason. Good eye. Still I wanna see those modes.
It is incorrect to think that it is a truncated cone on the inside. Everything shows that it is a cylinder on one end joined to a truncated cone on the other end. The mode shapes for such a geometric body are different than the mode shapes for a truncated cone as modeled by Egan.
And I don't think that the cylinder is there by accident. Somebody thought this through.
Yeah it looks like they put a can inside the cone for some reason. Good eye. Still I wanna see those modes.
OK, we can put it this way:
1) It is the first (lowest) mode of Egan for the truncated cone on the inside (next to the larger surface)
plus
2) the first (lowest) mode for the cylindrical can (located next to the smaller surface)
It is incorrect to think that it is a truncated cone on the inside. Everything shows that it is a cylinder on one end joined to a truncated cone on the other end. The mode shapes for such a geometric body are different than the mode shapes for a truncated cone as modeled by Egan.
And I don't think that the cylinder is there by accident. Somebody thought this through.
Yeah it looks like they put a can inside the cone for some reason. Good eye. Still I wanna see those modes.
OK, we can put it this way:
1) It is the first (lowest) mode of Egan for the truncated cone on the inside (next to the larger surface)
plus
2) the first (lowest) mode for the cylindrical can (located next to the smaller surface)
It is incorrect to think that it is a truncated cone on the inside. Everything shows that it is a cylinder on one end joined to a truncated cone on the other end. The mode shapes for such a geometric body are different than the mode shapes for a truncated cone as modeled by Egan.
And I don't think that the cylinder is there by accident. Somebody thought this through.
Yeah it looks like they put a can inside the cone for some reason. Good eye. Still I wanna see those modes.
OK, we can put it this way:
1) It is the first (lowest) mode of Egan for the truncated cone on the inside (next to the larger surface)
plus
2) the first (lowest) mode for the cylindrical can (located next to the smaller surface)
Yup, that works
Congratulations, you just invented a propless sub.
Keep it secret from the Russian and Chinese navies will ya? SheeeezCongratulations, you just invented a propless sub.
Not yet he ain't.
Ther's an experimental apparatus there for the taking.
Parla sotto voce
Hopefully our conclusions are read by others.
Is there really any way we can help move the science along any faster? Is this discussion followed?
Do summarize, both for the peanut gallery, and for the class clown.
It's time to do some maths.
If the maths work.
Build a better one.
Then test it.
It's time to do some maths.
If the maths work.
Build a better one.
Then test it.
Before that, ya got to tell 's what 'ya think the Teflon dielectric is for 'n why ya wanta put it at the wide enda :)
In order to operate the RF antenna at sufficiently high power, the antenna needs to be cooled and insulated from the plasma by a dielectric material
There are two main types of MPD thrusters, applied-field and self-field. Applied-field thrusters have magnetic rings surrounding the exhaust chamber to produce the magnetic field, while self-field thrusters have a cathode extending through the middle of the chamber. Applied fields are necessary at lower power levels, where self-field configurations are too weak. Various propellants such as xenon, neon, argon, hydrogen, hydrazine, and lithium have been used, with lithium generally being the best performer.
According to Edgar Choueiri magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters have input power 100-500 kilowatts, exhaust velocity 15-60 kilometers per second, thrust 2.5-25 newtons and efficiency 40-60 percent
VASIMR can be most basically thought of as a convergent-divergent nozzle for ions and electrons. The propellant (a neutral gas such as argon or xenon) is first injected into a hollow cylinder surfaced with electromagnets. Upon entry into the engine, the gas is first heated to a “cold plasma” by a helicon RF antenna (also known as a “coupler”) which bombards the gas with electromagnetic waves, stripping electrons off the argon or xenon atoms and leaving plasma consisting of ions and loose electrons to continue down the engine compartment. By varying the amount of energy dedicated to RF heating and the amount of propellant delivered for plasma generation VASIMR is capable of either generating low-thrust, high–specific impulse exhaust or relatively high-thrust, low–specific impulse exhaust.[4] The second phase is a strong electromagnet positioned to compress the ionized plasma in a similar fashion to a convergent-divergent nozzle that compresses gas in traditional rocket engines.
A second coupler, known as the Ion Cyclotron Heating (ICH) section, emits electromagnetic waves in resonance with the orbits of ions and electrons as they travel through the engine. Resonance of the waves and plasma is achieved through a reduction of the magnetic field in this portion of the engine which slows down the orbital motion of the plasma particles. This section further heats the plasma to temperatures upwards of 1,000,000 kelvin — about 173 times the temperature of the Sun’s surface
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.PTFE is a thermoplastic. As a polymer it can be semi-crystalline The crystallinity is governed by the processing method and the rate of cooling after processing. Higher rates of cooling suppress crystallite formation, resulting in lower degrees of crystallinity.
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.
I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.
OK, I took the time to go through all the pages in which you have posted, looking for the original reference you use to place importance on the chirality of Teflon. I could not find such reference. Please post the link again, as I would like to check whether it can possibly relate to a thermoplastic semi-crystalline polymer with transitions near room temperature, and in particular to Teflon.
The paper provides a theoretical calculation, no experiments to verify it. Common Teflon is only semi-crystalline and a thermoplastic, it is not that ordered. Not much can be said without knowing the specific manufacturing method, but even if the paper's calculation would be correct (an unverified assumption) it seems to me that commonly available Teflon would not be an ideal material. It would have to have been manufactured with the intent to enhance its order and anisotropy, and even then it is very unclear to me why would a researcher use such a nonlinear material with transitions occurring in the room temperature range, particularly in a lab like Eagleworks that to my knowledge did not fully characterize the Teflon used for the experiments (no FTIR, DSC, TMA, TGA, DTMA, thermal conductivity vs Temp, MTS, and certainly no measurements to characterize its anisotropy, etc.). According to our previous discussions, the NASA report shows that if there is something useful in this respect to Teflon it is more likely to be the result of chance than experimental design.I need help. PTFE monomers appear to be chiral to me as seen in a globe model of the molecules, but I have no idea if it is magnetochiral.
OK, I took the time to go through all the pages in which you have posted, looking for the original reference you use to place importance on the chirality of Teflon. I could not find such reference. Please post the link again, as I would like to check whether it can possibly relate to a thermoplastic semi-crystalline polymer with transitions near room temperature, and in particular to Teflon.
Well the whole notion of chirality was an idea I had while trying to invoke a better linear asymmetry in a tube of dielectric, so I could explain Cannae, and also explain if the dielectric was important or not in EMdrive; days later it became crystal clear that for emdrive to work, you had to react with something in order to move, then I found this paper and my heart started beating rapidly.......
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:
<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:
<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>
It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:
<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>
It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.
<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>>
It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:
<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>
It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.
<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>>
It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.
I just said that.
"Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia."
Outside the cavity is the opposite, the QV itself is the inertial observer.
Well in generic terms, it looks chiral. Magnetochiral? I don't know. Given the shape of the emdrive cone and the nature of the poynting vector flowing from A to B. I don't think the magnetochiral nature of the material is required for the thing to work, inasmuch as a magnetochiral material would be an optimization; making it work better. The arxiv paper was assuming a spherical universe and no modification of inertia.
Asymmetries in the system already:
1. Linear asymmetry
2. Poynting vector has defined direction by diminishing Q
3. magnetochirality of teflon?????
I think we have enough.
Agreed? Yes or no?
My understanding is that from the point of view of the quantised inertia explanation, what matters is the acceleration occurring at the boundaries (the boundary surfaces provided by the copper walls and the boundary surface of the dielectric) rather than the interior of the copper wall or the interior of the dielectric:
<<This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.>>
It is both, inside and outside; at the same time. The universe inside the cavity is finite. Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia. Inside the cavity, the edge of the universe is inertial. The universe outside is expanding, invoking Unruh, modifying inertia.
<<for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long>>
It is the acceleration , not the speed, that affects the inertia.
I just said that.
"Therefore any accelerating particle inside the cavity gains inertia."
Outside the cavity is the opposite, the QV itself is the inertial observer.
It is not any accelerating particle that matters for the horizon. It is only those that undergo an acceleration such that the Unruh waves fit within the dimensions of the flat surfaces of the truncated cone, or the dielectric.
That rules out a wide range of accelerations, and restricts what matters to the surfaces (including a thin skin effect)
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
Sure would, bigger is better. As long as you don't collapse the EM field. You gotta engineer it.
On the flip side, a bigger antenna can impart more power. A bigger loop probe=more power. A giant door knob probe=more power.
I just forced myself to believe in an impossible thing.
...
Well the whole notion of chirality was an idea I had while trying to invoke a better linear asymmetry in a tube of dielectric, so I could explain Cannae, and also explain if the dielectric was important or not in EMdrive; days later it became crystal clear that for emdrive to work, you had to react with something in order to move, then I found this paper and my heart started beating rapidly.......
http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.
Fnarr Dr Rodal fnarr. (Look up Viz comic (Finbar Saunders) and especially Roger's Profanisaurus.)...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.
That would be very interesting, as the magnetic field mode shape inside the "cylindrical can" dielectric part of the cavity would be governed by the inner diameter of the dielectric. In essence we would have:
A) a smaller cylindrical cavity formed by the cylindrical hole of the dielectric annulus
and
B) the much larger truncated cone cavity downstream of the dielectric annulus
EDIT: If the dielectric was a huge annulus, how did they accomplish this? Did they use a thin Teflon pipe? Did they use a Teflon sheet and roll it into an annulus?
If it is a Teflon sheet rolled to form a thin cylinder of ~9 inch diameter, then, again, the main effect of the dielectric is its surface. Ditto for a thin Teflon pipe.
I would be very, very surprised if they used a Teflon rod 9 inch outer diameter with a small inner hole (of say 1 inch inner diameter) such that the bulk thickness of the Teflon would be important.
...We are discussing whether the bulk interior of the copper walls and the bulk interior of the dielectric plays a significant role as compared to the boundary surfaces.
All Unruh does for you inside the cavity is make sure nothing violates C.
At one point recently I understood you to ask or suggest that the cylindrical "can" inside the truncated cone was a dielectric. That would make it a hugely thick dielectric.
Let me ask you: if you think that the inner bulk inner material of the dielectric plays an important role, then do you think that a dielectric several inches thick would be even better ?
I think that the tested cone has the large amount of dielectric, but that they came to the same conclusion (about surfaces) and have reduced it to the disk shown in the "optimized" diagram.
That would be very interesting, as the magnetic field mode shape inside the "cylindrical can" dielectric part of the cavity would be governed by the inner diameter of the dielectric. In essence we would have:
A) a smaller cylindrical cavity formed by the cylindrical hole of the dielectric annulus
and
B) the much larger truncated cone cavity downstream of the dielectric annulus
EDIT: If the dielectric was a huge annulus, how did they accomplish this? Did they use a thin Teflon pipe? Did they use a Teflon sheet and roll it into an annulus?
If it is a Teflon sheet rolled to form a thin cylinder of ~9 inch diameter, then, again, the main effect of the dielectric is its surface. Ditto for a thin Teflon pipe.
I would be very, very surprised if they used a Teflon rod 9 inch outer diameter with a small inner hole (of say 1 inch inner diameter) such that the bulk thickness of the Teflon would be important. Or if they used a solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in outer diameter, without any inner hole.
Also, that's not what the magnetic field (see attached, the blue arrows) seems to show. If there was such a large dielectric it must have been a thin pipe or rolled sheet, seems to me:
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Odd! Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.
Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Odd! Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.
A 9 inch solid rod of Teflon would be fairly isotropic with very little directional chirality.
If it was extruded, I would expect a fair amount of shear mixing (therefore loss of directionality and chirality) in the throat of the extruder. But it all depends on the dimensions of the throat of the extruder that extruded the Teflon rod.
Back to the respectable science here after Fnarrrrrrrrrrrrrr
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Odd! Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.
A 9 inch solid rod of Teflon would be fairly isotropic with very little directional chirality.
If it was extruded, I would expect a fair amount of shear mixing (therefore loss of directionality and chirality) in the throat of the extruder. But it all depends on the dimensions of the throat of the extruder that extruded the Teflon rod.
Easily available up to 20.5 inch diameter ! http://www.enflo.com/molded_ptfe_rod.html
The NASA report never states what the dielectric used for the truncated cone was. They write that the dielectric for the Canae device was Teflon.
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Odd! Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.
The NASA report never states what the dielectric used for the truncated cone was. They write that the dielectric for the Canae device was Teflon.
* early analysis of Frustum B.jpg makes me think it was a solid rod, initially anyway.
Wow. I admit to be very surprised at that ! A solid rod of Teflon 9 inches in diameter !
No wonder that supposedly Shawyer got rid of it :)
Odd! Thinking of Shawyers construction, his could have been filled w/ water, or oil.
They only state for the truncated cone: <<There appears to be a clear dependency between thrust magnitude and the presence of some sort of dielectric RF resonator in the thrust chamber>>
However, since they removed it and then they inserted it again with apparent ease, it is likely that what they removed and re-inserted was a solid than a liquid, if the solid was not glued inside it.
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
After I learned to let go of the absolute universality of EEP, I was then able to accept Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (and all the other theories) as facets of the same interaction, expressed at different levels of interaction.Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory has no arrow of time: it implies time symmetry. Feynman abandoned it for QED due to the problem of self-interactions.
Thanks Dr. McCulloch for bringing order to the madness via your fresh insight on the true origin of inertial mass. I hope you are correct.
As the great Feynman is quoted, "All mass is interaction."
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
After I learned to let go of the absolute universality of EEP, I was then able to accept Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (and all the other theories) as facets of the same interaction, expressed at different levels of interaction.Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory has no arrow of time: it implies time symmetry. For QED it has even more problems, that's why Feynman abandoned it for QED (due to the problem of self-interactions).
Thanks Dr. McCulloch for bringing order to the madness via your fresh insight on the true origin of inertial mass. I hope you are correct.
As the great Feynman is quoted, "All mass is interaction."
Does McCulloch's quantised inertia theory also imply time-symmetry? no arrow of time? I didn't notice that.
Also, my understanding of McCulloch's theory that it assumes that the inertial mass of an object is caused
by Unruh radiation resulting from its acceleration with respect to surrounding matter.
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
Suspend it from the place that will give you the greatest height, as high as possible in a place with no air drafts. > 20ft high would be nice. Do you have access to an abandoned elevator shaft?
Use thin piano wire (strong and small diameter). Use a laser to verify the small movement.
1 KWatt (as done by the Chinese) should give you ~0.3 Newtons. Explore 1.5 to 3 GHz frequencies.
Take a movie and post it in our thread :)
After I learned to let go of the absolute universality of EEP, I was then able to accept Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (and all the other theories) as facets of the same interaction, expressed at different levels of interaction.Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory has no arrow of time: it implies time symmetry. For QED it has even more problems, that's why Feynman abandoned it for QED (due to the problem of self-interactions).
Thanks Dr. McCulloch for bringing order to the madness via your fresh insight on the true origin of inertial mass. I hope you are correct.
As the great Feynman is quoted, "All mass is interaction."
Does McCulloch's quantised inertia theory also imply time-symmetry? no arrow of time? I didn't notice that.
Also, my understanding of McCulloch's theory that it assumes that the inertial mass of an object is caused
by Unruh radiation resulting from its acceleration with respect to surrounding matter.
It modifies the context of the origin of inertial mass to fit the universe.
Said a different way, "The origin of all mass is all interaction."
Not just some interaction. Not just distant matter, and the gravity from it.
Another core tenet is that objects undergoing very very very small acceleration have very very very low inertial mass.
Unruh radiation is a fancy way of saying ALL possible radiation.
After I learned to let go of the absolute universality of EEP, I was then able to accept Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (and all the other theories) as facets of the same interaction, expressed at different levels of interaction.Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory has no arrow of time: it implies time symmetry. For QED it has even more problems, that's why Feynman abandoned it for QED (due to the problem of self-interactions).
Thanks Dr. McCulloch for bringing order to the madness via your fresh insight on the true origin of inertial mass. I hope you are correct.
As the great Feynman is quoted, "All mass is interaction."
Does McCulloch's quantised inertia theory also imply time-symmetry? no arrow of time? I didn't notice that.
Also, my understanding of McCulloch's theory that it assumes that the inertial mass of an object is caused
by Unruh radiation resulting from its acceleration with respect to surrounding matter.
It modifies the context of the origin of inertial mass to fit the universe.
Said a different way, "The origin of all mass is all interaction."
Not just some interaction. Not just distant matter, and the gravity from it.
Another core tenet is that objects undergoing very very very small acceleration have very very very low inertial mass.
Unruh radiation is a fancy way of saying ALL possible radiation.
OK but I see some very nice things. The weak force has an arrow of time that breaks time symmetry. The weak force is associated with radiation. Unruh is a form of radiation, like Hawkins radiation that is part of quantum gravity.
McCulloch --> local effects + arrow of time / a quantised theory of inertia
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
Suspend it from the place that will give you the greatest height, as high as possible in a place with no air drafts. > 20ft high would be nice. Do you have access to an abandoned elevator shaft?
Use thin piano wire (strong and small diameter). Use a laser to verify the small movement.
1 KWatt (as done by the Chinese) should give you ~0.3 Newtons. Explore 1.5 to 3 GHz frequencies.
Take a movie and post it in our thread :)
An interaction with the geomagnetic field might be observed. Even a small amount of current will cause movement if the pendulum is long. Twisted DC power leads cancel this out to some extent, but not completely. There is always some residual current loop. And any method used to eliminate the resistance to movement from power leads will increase the torque caused by interaction with the geomagnetic field. This is one possible source of measurement error that is not addressed in the em drive paper, besides the others I mentioned earlier.
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
Suspend it from the place that will give you the greatest height, as high as possible in a place with no air drafts. > 20ft high would be nice. Do you have access to an abandoned elevator shaft?
Use thin piano wire (strong and small diameter). Use a laser to verify the small movement.
1 KWatt (as done by the Chinese) should give you ~0.3 Newtons. Explore 1.5 to 3 GHz frequencies.
Take a movie and post it in our thread :)
An interaction with the geomagnetic field might be observed. Even a small amount of current will cause movement if the pendulum is long. Twisted DC power leads cancel this out to some extent, but not completely. There is always some residual current loop. And any method used to eliminate the resistance to movement from power leads will increase the torque caused by interaction with the geomagnetic field. This is one possible source of measurement error that is not addressed in the em drive paper, besides the others I mentioned earlier.
I agree.
What are the other "possible source of measurement error that is not addressed in the em drive paper" you mentioned previously (besides the geomagnetic field) ? Please refresh our minds...
A previous lurker and a newly minted member here. I have been following this topic for some time and just want to throw in a few thoughts I have had, for what they are worth.
1) The MCL amplifier used is a Class AB amp. The output, unless it has a DC blocking cap inside the amp, will have a DC offset = Vdd/2. My guess is the amp does not have a DC blocking cap because that would affect the bandwidth and MCL likes to advertise their amplifiers as being broadband. It is also possible that different load configurations (reflected power) will change the offset. When a dummy load is used the RF feedline is totally coaxial so no external magnetic effects would be present. However when the cavity is loaded the internal loop, if there is a DC offset, would act like an electromagnet. Any DC magnetic field generated in the loop would not be shielded by the metal. There is no mention of any testing or mitigation of a DC offset from the Class AB amplifier in the paper. I would not expect the dual directional couplers used between the amplifier and the cavity to have DC blocking caps.
2) I also question the RF theory of this device. It is an untuned cavity with a very high Q ceramic resonator inside. Almost all the RF power will be in the ceramic, and very little power will be bouncing off the inside Cu walls of the cavity. The cavity is just a Faraday cage. Its end caps are single-sided FR4 (fiberglass PCB material). The S11 plot (voltage reflection coefficient at the input) shows this very well. Very, very little RF power is reflected back to the input at 1932.6 MHz. That is to be expected. Any RF-tight enclosure with the same ceramic resonator inside would produce a similar S11 plot. There is no mystery about it. Well, except where does the anomalous force come from?
In pages 15, 16 of the paper the 16 mm and 12.5 mm loop antenna used to drive the cone-shaped cavity are mentioned. The wireframe drawings of the cavity also show a loop attached to what looks like an RF connector on the outside of the cone. The MCL ZHL-100 amplifier is rated at 100 W with a 28 V supply. Since they are only running it at 17 or 2.6 Watts the DC supply would be much less than 28 V. So if there was a DC offset coming from the class AB amp that was not blocked there would not be a significant overload of the power supply or amp. This is just theoretical. I don't know if the RF amps DC offset is blocked. Nothing in the paper indicates that it is. I don't know enough about the Cannae device to know if it uses a loop or a 1/4 λ probe, but all the RF cavity filters I have seen use loops.
....
Yes. I mention these possible sources of error because there they are not discussed in the paper and when measuring very small forces the geomagnetic field and fields from power cables can produce measurable results.....
So the possible measurement error you bring up is:
Possible DC offset coming from the class AB amp that was not blocked. When the cavity is loaded, if there is an unblocked DC offset, the EM drive will act like an electromagnet, and the slowly-varying magnetic field will escape the EM drive's cavity. The slowly-varying magnetic field from the cavity may interact with any combination of the following:
A) the Earth's magnetic field,
B) the magnetic damper used to dampen the inverted torsional pendulum oscillations
C) the magnetic field from the power cable
Did I include everything you brought up as a possible measurement error?
....
His theory reconciles QM with GR by bringing precision to GR.
You don't even need to quantize gravity anymore.
You don't need fancy math tricks anymore.
You don't need dark matter anymore.
You can calculate dark energy as vacuum energy correctly now.
The vacuum catastrophe can go away.
A cold inertial particle with NO acceleration is a perfect emitter and absorber.
....
Here are the reasons why the measurements maybe an experimental artifact, better prioritized and with comments:
Possible DC offset coming from the class AB amp that was not properly blocked. When the cavity is loaded, with an unblocked DC offset, the EM drive will act like an electromagnet, and the slowly-varying magnetic field will escape the EM drive's cavity. The slowly-varying magnetic field from the cavity may interact with any combination of the following:
1) the Earth's magnetic field
Pro: This is common throughout the Earth: in the USA, UK and China. So it would serve to explain all the experiments, in different continents.
Against:
A) One would expect the alignment with the geomagnetic field to differ with (likely different) experimental setup orientations in the USA, UK and China. Therefore one would not expect an equation (like Prof. McCulloch's) to universally and comprehensibly explain all these experiments without an obvious bias between the different locations.
B) Shawyer's rotational "on air bearing" demonstration had the Shawyer EMDrive smoohtly rotate through many revolutions. I would not have expected that smooth rotation to be compatible with a magnetic field interaction between the EMDrive and the geomagnetic field.
2) the magnetic field from the power cable
Against:
A) I would expect this to be an issue with external sources of power (NASA Eagleworks) but not when using a battery.
B) Shawyer's rotational "on air bearing" demonstration had the Shawyer EMDrive smoohtly rotate through many revolutions. I would not have expected that smooth rotation to be compatible with a magnetic field interaction between the EMDrive and a stationary power cable.
3) the magnetic damper used to dampen the inverted torsional pendulum oscillations
Against:
A) I would expect this to be an issue only for NASA Eagleworks. Perhaps with the Chinese University if they also used a magnetic damper (which is unknown). It doesn't appear that Shawyer used a magnetic damper.
B) Shawyer's rotational "on air bearing" demonstration had the Shawyer EMDrive smoohtly rotate through many revolutions. I would not have expected that smooth rotation to be compatible with a stationary magnetic damper even if Shawyer would have used a magnetic damper (which apparently he did not use).
My overall take on this em-drive phenomena and a conservative application of Occam's razor is that Sonny White is a very good experimentalist, and possibly the best of them all. He has done the most to find and account for any anomalous force and has reduced it to the lowest level. I am assuming he is privy to many of the details of the other em-drive experiments. I consider his work to be a good-faith effort to duplicate Sawyer's or the Chinese group's experiment; after all replication is the purpose. If others have replicated Sawyer's experiment independently, or the Chinese experiment and gotten the same force values, then my views might change. I mention these possible sources of error as they could apply to the JSC experiments, after reading their paper since I just don't have as many details on the other em-drive experiments. It is entirely possible that in their thoroughness they did account for these effects, but considering them too trivial to mention in their paper. I remain an unbeliever in this em-drive.
There isn't enough information about their experimental setup in Yang et al paper to critique it. And not enough for anyone to replicate their experiment.
My overall take on this em-drive phenomena and a conservative application of Occam's razor is that Sonny White is a very good experimentalist, and possibly the best of them all. He has done the most to find and account for any anomalous force and has reduced it to the lowest level. I am assuming he is privy to many of the details of the other em-drive experiments. I consider his work to be a good-faith effort to duplicate Sawyer's or the Chinese group's experiment; after all replication is the purpose. If others have replicated Sawyer's experiment independently, or the Chinese experiment and gotten the same force values, then my views might change. I mention these possible sources of error as they could apply to the JSC experiments, after reading their paper since I just don't have as many details on the other em-drive experiments. It is entirely possible that in their thoroughness they did account for these effects, but considering them too trivial to mention in their paper. I remain an unbeliever in this em-drive.
These are the Chinese papers:
http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
and this is the best (in my opinion) of the Shawyer's papers:
http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf
I look forward to your reviewing the above papers with your critical eye, when you have the time, as I would appreciate hearing any potential problems you uncover with their experimental setup.
QuoteHis theory reconciles QM with GR by bringing precision to GR.
You don't even need to quantize gravity anymore.
You don't need fancy math tricks anymore.
You don't need dark matter anymore.
You can calculate dark energy as vacuum energy correctly now.
The vacuum catastrophe can go away.
A cold inertial particle with NO acceleration is a perfect emitter and absorber.
According to my feeble understanding, this means rewriting the physics textbooks.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but until there's experimental evidence to support the idea, it's only a hypothesis - a far cry from the time to rewrite physics texts! ;)
I hate to be a wet blanket, but until there's experimental evidence to support the idea, it's only a hypothesis - a far cry from the time to rewrite physics texts! ;)
http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st14
I hate to be a wet blanket, but until there's experimental evidence to support the idea, it's only a hypothesis - a far cry from the time to rewrite physics texts! ;)
http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st14
Facts that happen to fit the theory help, but rigorous testing of the theory's predictions are needed before they can be accepted as something more than a theory.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but until there's experimental evidence to support the idea, it's only a hypothesis - a far cry from the time to rewrite physics texts! ;)
http://physics.aps.org/story/v12/st14
Facts that happen to fit the theory help, but rigorous testing of the theory's predictions are needed before they can be accepted as something more than a theory.
Which is what's happening.:)
Classic science. Some crazy theorist has an idea, works it out in math, gives it to an engineer, the engineer says heck no this is stupid, then builds it as best as he can. The experimentalist make sense of it, then feed it back to the crazy theorist.
Rinse, repeat.
Classic science. Some crazy theorist has an idea, works it out in math, gives it to an engineer, the engineer says heck no this is stupid, then builds it as best as he can. The experimentalist make sense of it, then feed it back to the crazy theorist.
Rinse, repeat.
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/(en)/ZIF/FG/2012Quantumscience/abstract/02-27-vortrag/Vortrag-Satz.pdf
thermal hadron production in e+e− (positron electron) annihilation, including strangeness suppression, is reproduced parameter-free as Hawking-Unruh radiation of QCD
measurements cannot tell if the equilibrium was reached by thermal evolution or by throwing dice:
⇒ Ergodic Equivalence Principle ⇐
gravitation ∼ acceleration
kinetic ∼ stochastic
equivalence of kinetic vs. stochastic equilibration
So let me get this straight...
...
?
...
So let me get this straight...
...
?
...
The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ????] flat walls can make a horizon.
Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation and therefore that the Unruh waves are affected by the [copper ????] flat wall because they are partly ElectroMagnetic waves and the electrons in the [copper ????] flat walls move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ????] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?
Four questions really:
1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ????] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?
4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?. (In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) depends on the Unruh radiation wavelength and the Hubble distance as follows:
mi=m(1-L/4T)
where m is the unmodified mass, L is the Unruh wavelength determined by the acceleration, and T is the Hubble distance)
Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of particles, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.
I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.
Hawking radiation is also controversial. It leads to information problems. To adress the information apparent "loss" different solutions have been proposed. There is no consensus. Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems Hawking radiation is too small to be observed directly.I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.
So let me get this straight...
...
?
...
The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ????] flat walls can make a horizon.
Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation and therefore that the Unruh waves are affected by the [copper ????] flat wall because they are partly ElectroMagnetic waves and the electrons in the [copper ????] flat walls move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ????] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?
Four questions really:
1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ????] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?
4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?. (In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) depends on the Unruh radiation wavelength and the Hubble distance as follows:
mi=m(1-L/4T)
where m is the unmodified mass, L is the Unruh wavelength determined by the acceleration, and T is the Hubble distance)
Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up (unruh radiation). In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.
Hawking radiation is also controversial. It leads to information problems. To adress the information apparent "loss" different solutions have been proposed. There is no consensus. Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems Hawking radiation is too small to be observed directly.I liken it to Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is also the result of a large acceleration. The acceleration across a black hole's event horizon, which pulls apart particle pairs, resulting in Hawking radiation. Pretty much the same thing, different ways of looking at it.Unruh waves are all around you right now. They are not apparent to you until you accelerate and things start heating up. In our everyday experience, all you can do to see unruh waves in action is measure their effect via the casimir effect.The existence of Unruh radiation is controversial. The skeptics accept that an accelerating object thermalises at the Unruh temperature, but they do not believe that this leads to the emission of photons, arguing that the emission and absorption rates of the accelerating particle are balanced.
...
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
...
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Now to the 2nd question:
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
Can we at least "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ? (never mind whether they are large enough)
What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Now to the 2nd question:
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
Can we at least "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ? (never mind whether they are large enough)
What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?
No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.
No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Now to the 2nd question:
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
Can we at least "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ? (never mind whether they are large enough)
What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?
No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.
No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.
Quoting Prof. McCulloc: << but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field,>>
The acceleration is the "a" in the formula you (at least momentarily) posted.
Again I ask you:
What is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Now to the 2nd question:
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
Can we at least "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ? (never mind whether they are large enough)
What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?
No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.
No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.
Quoting Prof. McCulloc: << but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field,>>
The acceleration is the "a" in the formula you (at least momentarily) posted.
Again I ask you:
What is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
The emdrive itself accelerating with respect to the universe or any observer.
Inside, the photons with respect to their emitter and the cavity walls.
A photon has no mass first, just momentum; secondly, it is already going C. There is no more to accelerate. It doesn't experience Unruh Radiation. It is radiation.
Thank you. That's progress....
Hawking radiation is not just where particle pairs are pulled apart. It is also the mechanism for which information is conserved. It isn't a cause of information problems. A black hole slowly evaporates and returns that information back to the universe.
...
Rather than arguing about what Hawking radiation encompasses, and whether there is a Hawking radiation paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox (certainly there is no consensus) and such esoteric topics, why don't we concentrate on the EM drive?
I propose we should strive to answer the questions I posed, starting by the first simple question: is the NASA Eagleworks drive a closed Faraday cage? are the flat ends indeed made out of copper?
By every method I use, it appears to be copper all around. Shawyer's design is copper. Nasa tested Shawyer's design.
Information entropy and casual horizons do apply to emdrive. Since the Casimir effect is confirmed. I don't tend to question Unruh waves. Since an object approaching C gets baked by radiation, I don't tend to question Unruh Radiation.
That gray stuff over the large end cap is a cover used for something. I don't know what for.
At emdrive.com, Shawyer says it is an enclosed cavity. The nature of it being an enclosed cavity is why it is controversial. So I say we can keep operating as if it is enclosed.
Now to the 2nd question:
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
Can we at least "back of the envelope" calculate what are the accelerations involved ? (never mind whether they are large enough)
What is accelerating? Why is it accelerating? When is it accelerating? What is the acceleration?
No this doesn't apply to electromagnetic radiation itself. It is already going the speed of light.
No, you just confused the heck out of me. Radiation doesn't experience Unruh radiation. It is radiation.
Quoting Prof. McCulloc: << but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field,>>
The acceleration is the "a" in the formula you (at least momentarily) posted.
Again I ask you:
What is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
The emdrive itself accelerating with respect to the universe or any observer.
Inside, the photons with respect to their emitter and the cavity walls.
A photon has no mass first, just momentum; secondly, it is already going C. There is no more to accelerate. It doesn't experience Unruh Radiation. It is radiation.
Please read what Prof. McCulloc wrote in his blog, including <<a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, >>
The acceleration of the EM drive center of mass is completely and utterly insignificant. What Prof. McCulloc is considering is the acceleration of the photons/electrons.
One really needs to understand the following:
What is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
What is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
QuoteWhat is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
Why is this a mystery? See my earlier post. The electrons within the cavity walls are accelerating in response to the RF wave. It is an AC acceleration of some amplitude at the frequency of the RF waves. Guess the amplitude of the electron oscillation, which is limited by the cavity dimensions and converted to heat by resistance. With the amplitude, then isn't the acceleration just the second derivative? What amplitude is needed to make the theory hold water?
QuoteWhat is accelerating? <<huge accelerations (as Prof. McCulloc assumes for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) >> [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ]
Where is it accelerating?
Why is it accelerating?
When is it accelerating?
What is the acceleration?
Why is this a mystery? See my earlier post. The electrons within the cavity walls are accelerating in response to the RF wave. It is an AC acceleration of some amplitude at the frequency of the RF waves. Guess the amplitude of the electron oscillation, which is limited by the cavity dimensions and converted to heat by resistance. With the amplitude, then isn't the acceleration just the second derivative? What amplitude is needed to make the theory hold water?
The field at any location outside the copper cavity includes the field contributed by internal charges. However, it looks as though the copper prevents the field from getting out, because the internal charges “polarize” the copper by shifting the mobile electrons in the metal, and the polarized copper contributes an additional electric field outside the container that is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the field contributed by the internal charges. The effect is indeed as though the copper “shielded” the copper cavity.
As the electric field contacts the copper, it accelerates the electrons (it accelerates the electrons much more than the protons, due to their very low mass). These accelerated electrons radiate electromagnetic radiation, like any accelerated charges. There are now additional field contributions that were not present in the absence of the electron-containing copper.
Consider what happens when the source charges are accelerated continuously, harmonically at a frequency up and down (which involves accelerations as the charges move faster and slower and turn around). Let the sinusoidal acceleration of those source charges continue for a sufficiently long time. Then the sinusoidal radiation has a phase which is shifted. That is, the peaks come at a different time than they did without the copper interaction. The interaction of the electric field with the copper can be (for nonobvious reasons) modeled by the electric field exerting a force on an outer electron in an atom as though the electron were bound to the atom by a spring-like force, with damping.
The field at any location outside the copper cavity includes the field contributed by internal charges. However, it looks as though the copper prevents the field from getting out, because the internal charges “polarize” the copper by shifting the mobile electrons in the metal, and the polarized copper contributes an additional electric field outside the container that is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the field contributed by the internal charges. The effect is indeed as though the copper “shielded” the copper cavity.
As the electric field contacts the copper, it accelerates the electrons (it accelerates the electrons much more than the protons, due to their very low mass). These accelerated electrons radiate electromagnetic radiation, like any accelerated charges. There are now additional field contributions that were not present in the absence of the electron-containing copper.
Consider what happens when the source charges are accelerated continuously, harmonically at a frequency up and down (which involves accelerations as the charges move faster and slower and turn around). Let the sinusoidal acceleration of those source charges continue for a sufficiently long time. Then the sinusoidal radiation has a phase which is shifted. That is, the peaks come at a different time than they did without the copper interaction. The interaction of the electric field with the copper can be (for nonobvious reasons) modeled by the electric field exerting a force on an outer electron in an atom as though the electron were bound to the atom by a spring-like force, with damping.
You are nuking rf cavities. This isn't a particle accelerator. Is that where you are going with this?
...Do I understand you correctly that you take for granted that the huge accelerations needed for Unruh radiation are present, and you think that calculating them is going on a tangent, but you think that esoteric quantum gravity unification discussion is not a tangent?
If I wanted to accelerate particles, say electrons, I would put positive thousands of volts on one side and negative volts on the other.
This thing has no cathode and no anode. We're on a tangent.
...Do I understand you correctly that you take for granted that the huge accelerations needed for Unruh radiation are present, and you think that calculating them is going on a tangent, but you think that esoteric quantum gravity unification discussion is not a tangent?
If I wanted to accelerate particles, say electrons, I would put positive thousands of volts on one side and negative volts on the other.
This thing has no cathode and no anode. We're on a tangent.
Well, make it easier. Assume no dissipation by other effects and consider only the electron motion in synchrony with the RF wave. Then the electron moves one complete cycle from A to B with one complete cycle of the RF wave. The cycle time of the RF wave, 1900 MHz, is 1/f = 5.26E-10 seconds. Limit the electron velocity to the speed of light so ... Ok, brain fart. Where does this go?Ok so we can't do it that way. Here is the correct way but its beyond my poor abilities today.
I doubt Prof. McCulloch is referring to the drift velocity of charges (which is too low). I have posed the question in his blog [http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html ], to clarify this issue. Thanks.Well, make it easier. Assume no dissipation by other effects and consider only the electron motion in synchrony with the RF wave. Then the electron moves one complete cycle from A to B with one complete cycle of the RF wave. The cycle time of the RF wave, 1900 MHz, is 1/f = 5.26E-10 seconds. Limit the electron velocity to the speed of light so ... Ok, brain fart. Where does this go?Ok so we can't do it that way. Here is the correct way but its beyond my poor abilities today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example)
For alternating current, drift velocity is proportional to the square of frequency...
Fnarr Dr Rodal fnarr. (Look up Viz comic (Finbar Saunders) and especially Roger's Profanisaurus.)
What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
Now all I need is a garage to get started!What would be the complications on conducting experiments in my garage?
I would need a copper frustum and optimised dielectric designed by you guys.
RF power source.
Suspend the whole thing from a wire and see if it moves.
Am I missing anything?
Actually, I don't think you're missing anything, if your setup could be optimized to demonstrate well above the noicse floor of the current setup. If you're putting a couple hundred watts into it, and it moves like a rubber band airplane, then I'd say congratulations, you are success.
So let me get this straight...[collect copper underpants...
The big question mark is whether the microwave (~2GHz) EmDrive [copper ????] flat walls can make a horizon.
...
Four questions really:
1) Is the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone a complete, closed, Faraday cage, including both flat end surfaces? (are the end surfaces also made of copper?)
2) Is it correct to assume that the light/electrons in the EmDrive experience the huge accelerations required for Unruh radiation ?
3) Is it correct to assume that the Unruh wave patterns close at the [copper ????] flat walls just as at the Hubble horizon ?
4) Is McCulloch's MiHsC theory correct that inertial mass is caused by Unruh radiation, and so it is affected by the Hubble horizon since Unruh waves must fit exactly within this horizon?.
To be clear, unruh waves are synonymous with saying all possible radiation because the unruh waves and unruh radiation is tied to the vacuum which is stochastic.
9 inches is 1315.78 mhz.
To be clear, unruh waves are synonymous with saying all possible radiation because the unruh waves and unruh radiation is tied to the vacuum which is stochastic.and 6 inches for the other end is what frequency ?
9 inches is 1315.78 mhz.
6 inches is 1974mhzBingo !
OK, we got an answer:
Dr. Rodal: <<Prof. McCulloch, do I understand correctly the statement "a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall" to mean that for your above simplified formula to be based on MiHsC, the accelerations of the electrons need to be large enough so that Unruh radiation can significantly affect the inertial mass such that milliNewton forces can be experienced?>>
Prof. McCulloch: <<Yes: the accelerating objects inside the shell/cavity must accelerate (a) fast enough that the Unruh waves they see become short enough to be damped by the shell. The formula is: wavelength~8c^2/a so, for example, to get Unruh waves 1 metre long you need a=7.2*10^17 m/s^2.>>
OK, we got an answer:
Dr. Rodal: <<Prof. McCulloch, do I understand correctly the statement "a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall" to mean that for your above simplified formula to be based on MiHsC, the accelerations of the electrons need to be large enough so that Unruh radiation can significantly affect the inertial mass such that milliNewton forces can be experienced?>>
Prof. McCulloch: <<Yes: the accelerating objects inside the shell/cavity must accelerate (a) fast enough that the Unruh waves they see become short enough to be damped by the shell. The formula is: wavelength~8c^2/a so, for example, to get Unruh waves 1 metre long you need a=7.2*10^17 m/s^2.>>
Ok I get it. You're trying to calculate the acceleration of particles to fit within the band gap of what the walls are excluding. Don't forget the plasma frequency of the material too.
OK, we got an answer:
Dr. Rodal: <<Prof. McCulloch, do I understand correctly the statement "a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall" to mean that for your above simplified formula to be based on MiHsC, the accelerations of the electrons need to be large enough so that Unruh radiation can significantly affect the inertial mass such that milliNewton forces can be experienced?>>
Prof. McCulloch: <<Yes: the accelerating objects inside the shell/cavity must accelerate (a) fast enough that the Unruh waves they see become short enough to be damped by the shell. The formula is: wavelength~8c^2/a so, for example, to get Unruh waves 1 metre long you need a=7.2*10^17 m/s^2.>>
Ok I get it. You're trying to calculate the acceleration of particles to fit within the band gap of what the walls are excluding. Don't forget the plasma frequency of the material too.
I didn't know there was any plasma frequency to consider. What is "plasma frequency"?
Non si capisce più niente
OK, we got an answer:
Dr. Rodal: <<Prof. McCulloch, do I understand correctly the statement "a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall" to mean that for your above simplified formula to be based on MiHsC, the accelerations of the electrons need to be large enough so that Unruh radiation can significantly affect the inertial mass such that milliNewton forces can be experienced?>>
Prof. McCulloch: <<Yes: the accelerating objects inside the shell/cavity must accelerate (a) fast enough that the Unruh waves they see become short enough to be damped by the shell. The formula is: wavelength~8c^2/a so, for example, to get Unruh waves 1 metre long you need a=7.2*10^17 m/s^2.>>
Ok I get it. You're trying to calculate the acceleration of particles to fit within the band gap of what the walls are excluding. Don't forget the plasma frequency of the material too.
I didn't know there was any plasma frequency to consider. What is "plasma frequency"?
Wish I hadn't gone there. It is the upper frequency limit of a material.
OK, we got an answer:
Dr. Rodal: <<Prof. McCulloch, do I understand correctly the statement "a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall" to mean that for your above simplified formula to be based on MiHsC, the accelerations of the electrons need to be large enough so that Unruh radiation can significantly affect the inertial mass such that milliNewton forces can be experienced?>>
Prof. McCulloch: <<Yes: the accelerating objects inside the shell/cavity must accelerate (a) fast enough that the Unruh waves they see become short enough to be damped by the shell. The formula is: wavelength~8c^2/a so, for example, to get Unruh waves 1 metre long you need a=7.2*10^17 m/s^2.>>
Ok I get it. You're trying to calculate the acceleration of particles to fit within the band gap of what the walls are excluding. Don't forget the plasma frequency of the material too.
I didn't know there was any plasma frequency to consider. What is "plasma frequency"?
Wish I hadn't gone there. It is the upper frequency limit of a material.
I apologize for my bad italian. I meant to write <<no capisce>> that I didn't understand
You're losing me. Where did you find your nuke hat? The thing has a quiet zone inside. Because it is a copper can. Just measure it with a probe and a spec anny.OK, step by step then. Chi va piano va sano e va lontano
Well, for what its worth I calculate the skin depth for copper at 1900 MHz is about 1.5 microns.
The electron acceleration I get is about 7.7 g's. Not near high enough.
And note, to be precise, the cavity dimensions are about 0.25146 m major dia., 0.16764 m minor dia. 0.2286 m height. (Picked off the screen picture with a ruler scaling to the 1.5 inch cross section of the support arm.)
Well, for what its worth I calculate the skin depth for copper at 1900 MHz is about 1.5 microns.
The electron acceleration I get is about 7.7 g's. Not near high enough.
And note, to be precise, the cavity dimensions are about 0.25146 m major dia., 0.16764 m minor dia. 0.2286 m height. (Picked off the screen picture with a ruler scaling to the 1.5 inch cross section of the support arm.)
7.7g ???
If I understand Rodal, the idea would be to consider the oscillating electrons as a moving wall (a bit like the "moving mirror" in dynamical Casimir effect experiments). Those electrons wouldn't be ejected, they are accelerated back and forth but kept at stationary position (averaged on a period), it's like a "vibratory wall". During a half period that is 1/(2freq) all electrons could go for a back and forth trip of half a skin depth (considering only moves normal to the surfaces are relevant as for a moving "volume"). Give or take a 0.5 factor somewhere we are about max acceleration = skin_depth * freq² = 1.5e-6 * 1.9e9² = 5.4e12 m/s², huge but five orders of magnitude below needed acceleration for Unruh waves of 1m long (from McCulloch as reported by Rodal). That's by assuming all electrons go full back and forth oscillation at skin depth.
Was that it ?
One more paper to devour (?) not already linked to (??)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0835
I like fig. 2 page 4 that links the different effects.
I don't see photons could play the role of a moving wall for a cavity bouncing photons (virtual or real).
Another very good sign that EMdrive probably really works.
Another very good sign that EMdrive probably really works.
NO! NO! A Thousand Times No! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnJb2kCg0M4)
Another good sign that the promise of the drive excites the imagination, and results in a good deal of professional interest.
Film note: One of my earlier pieces.
Hark ye!
2) What objects inside the cavity are accelerating to 7.2*10^17 m/s^2 ?
...that is an acceleration of
730,000,000,000,000,000
times larger than 1 g.
By the way, that acceleration will exceed the speed of light in less than one cycle of the RF wave.
I get that phase velocity can out run group velocity and can even be superluminal but where's the thrust?
The walls of the cavity, in addition to the static casimir effects already postulated, could be exhibiting a weak dynamical casimir effect by virtue of the movements of the electrons. They aren't a moving mirror so this is very loosely correlated. How can a moving electron act as a moving mirror affecting any modes if any? The surface isn't exactly reflective in the optical sense, but it is to other wavelengths. Should the emdrive be silvered? Or covered in DLP like chips, to enhance this? Now I'm falling down another rabbit hole.
The maximum electric fields at the dielectric are calculated to be 47000 V/m. The electric field in the cavity is only about 1500 to 2000 V/m.The walls of the cavity, in addition to the static casimir effects already postulated, could be exhibiting a weak dynamical casimir effect by virtue of the movements of the electrons. They aren't a moving mirror so this is very loosely correlated. How can a moving electron act as a moving mirror affecting any modes if any? The surface isn't exactly reflective in the optical sense, but it is to other wavelengths. Should the emdrive be silvered? Or covered in DLP like chips, to enhance this? Now I'm falling down another rabbit hole.
A sea of free electrons is a mirror, for wavelengths longer than distance between them (optical yes, microwave definitely) so moving electrons do behave as a moving mirror (with a very low inertia compared to a solid mirror). Actually it is the "recoil" of being a mirror for the microwaves that makes them move and could make them move for other wavelength. Then the space charge prevent them to leave completely : they are bound within a certain depth by the positive holes they left in the lattice by moving... Basically this is a capacitor : applied E field => proportional charge displacements. That said, I'm far form certain this makes any sense : wouldn't the free electron (of the copper walls) move tangentially rather than normal to the surfaces to "counteract" the incoming E field and making the RF wave bounce ? What are the patterns of the "eddy currents" in presence of standing waves ? Intuitively I would say we have large scale current loops trying to make a H field normal to surface, that is tangential currents, not normal back and forth like a capacitor. If the charge displacements are tangential then the "mirror" isn't really moving (constant enclosed volume).
If alternating back and forth in the depth, then we have (from capacitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor) analogy) density of electrons rho=Q/A (Charge on Area) and electric field E=rho/eps (permittivity). From 8.5×10^28 electrons per cubic metre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example) for copper we have 1.36e10 Coulomb/m^3 that is rho=2e4 C/m² at 1.5µm depth and E = 2e4/8.8e-12 = 2.3e15 V/m. See also permittivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity) D=eps E : D is same as rho (C/m²) E electric field (V/m) and eps whatever...
I'm doing as if the electrons of the copper were in vacuum...
Mmm, this E is not in excess of vacuum dielectric strength (1e18 V/m) What are the E fields reported for the EMdrives resonant cavities ? Because this is in far excess of air (3e6 V/m) and even teflon (up to 1.7e8 V/m) dielectric strength. So even if high Q factor could pump up E field amplitude to such levels, materials would experience breakdown. Unless I messed up a 10^9 factor somewhere again ?
And such a hypothetical move of all electrons back and forth to skin depth can only make for about 5e12m/s² moving (oscillating mirror) : is it enough ?
2) What objects inside the cavity are accelerating to 7.2*10^17 m/s^2 ?
...that is an acceleration of
730,000,000,000,000,000
times larger than 1 g.By the way, that acceleration will exceed the speed of light in less than one cycle of the RF wave.
Somebody check this? Before I call el poopo del toro?
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
This accelerating photon seeing unruh radiation stuff is nonsense.
...
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
If the question was directed to me, the presumptive assumption in the question is unfounded concerning me: as one can ascertain by the discussion in: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlBy what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
Are you asking that to me ?
I don't think a photon would see Unruh radiation, I think a moving "wall of electrons" (periodically) accelerating at great values could see Unruh radiation. I believe the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. I don't believe in the claimed results so far, I think a number of more or less exotic effects could be used to get net forward thrust from power, but not at better than 1/c (as Newtons/Watts). But I'm not qualified to have any authority on the subject, just trying to follow.
Maybe your question was addressed to dr Rodal ?
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
This accelerating photon seeing unruh radiation stuff is nonsense.
...
Non sequitur and unfounded.
Please go to http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
and follow the discussion on the comments section.
By what logic are you assuming a photon would see unruh radiation when the speed of light is the same in all reference frames?
This accelerating photon seeing unruh radiation stuff is nonsense.
...
Non sequitur and unfounded.
Please go to http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html
and follow the discussion on the comments section.
A photon starts off at C. They don't accelerate.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
No. Try reading harder. You state it is due to thermal effects. Which it may be.The links you quote have nothing to do with thermal effects. I think you are confused.Just read the oracle on the Pioneer Anomaly. It is thought to be caused by thermal effects, as of 2011-ish. Is this not the case?What has that got to do with anything?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612599
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303
Basically everything.
The links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
Quote from: JFThe links have everything to do with the Pioneer anomaly, which pertain to McCulloch's theory of MiHsC. Loook harder.
No. Try reading harder. You state it is due to thermal effects. Which it may be.
However you then link to McCullochs papers. Not thermal, but MiHsC.
Which is it?
This paper proposes an explanation for the Pioneer anomaly:
The Pioneer anomaly is similar to the galaxy rotation problem.
But the Pioneer anomaly, or the EMDrive explanation, and any other anomaly of a man-made object is not a fair test of the quantised inertia Unruh theory.
A fair test would be the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
McCulloch's quantised inertia based on Unruh radiation is a physical theory, not an engineering theory and not a theory-of-everything.But the Pioneer anomaly, or the EMDrive explanation, and any other anomaly of a man-made object is not a fair test of the quantised inertia Unruh theory.
A fair test would be the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
No lo comprendo, kemosabe. Explica para nosotros, party favor?
Are you saying that DM is that which without which they ain't no swing?
That is, why wouldn't a man-made experiment be, in principle, disallowed as a test of a theory?
Me no unnerstand.
I don't know how this inters the discussion, but have we overlooked the part about the cavity being filled with air?
To what degree would the air ionize producing ions/electrons in the mix? Ions would be massive but the electrons should be free to move about.
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
To analyze this concept we need to specify what it entails. Are you referring to the paper you quoted on chirality of the molecule and the quantum vacuum? or are you referring to something else?
Thanks
I've attached a sketch of the Eagleworks cavity with the area ratios. Note that the base is 2.25 times larger than the throat. Does this mean that a particle oscillating between the base the throat at constant speed will impart 2.25 times the momentum on the throat as it does on the base?
Well and good, but if that particle has inertial mass of 1 unit as measured in the laboratory frame, what is it's inertial mass at the base? Of course it is 2.25 times that amount at the throat but what is the reference frame?
It is an important consideration because the answer will tell us how many oscillating particles are needed to produce the measured thrust.
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
To analyze this concept we need to specify what it entails. Are you referring to the paper you quoted on chirality of the molecule and the quantum vacuum? or are you referring to something else?
Thanks
The perceived importance of the dielectric media to the operation of the device. And yes. Also Dr. White's research on QVT.
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
To analyze this concept we need to specify what it entails. Are you referring to the paper you quoted on chirality of the molecule and the quantum vacuum? or are you referring to something else?
Thanks
The perceived importance of the dielectric media to the operation of the device. And yes. Also Dr. White's research on QVT.
The chirality theory has been already dealt with. It is not-explanatory due to the extremely small size of the effect predicted (nanometer per second velocity due to 10 Tesla magnetic field) and due to the fact that a 9 inch solid rod injection molded has no directionality.
We must be sure to understand that emdrive doesn't need MiHsC to work if dielectric thrust holds true. MiHsC is an optimization factor. Here on earth in strong gravity MiHsC's effect is essentially zero. Once in microgravity is it helpful. The effect is pretty much nothing otherwise unless you have fancy meta materials.OK, let's analyze the meaning of "dielectric thrust"
To analyze this concept we need to specify what it entails. Are you referring to the paper you quoted on chirality of the molecule and the quantum vacuum? or are you referring to something else?
Thanks
The perceived importance of the dielectric media to the operation of the device. And yes. Also Dr. White's research on QVT.
The chirality theory has been already dealt with. It is not-explanatory due to the extremely small size of the effect predicted (nanometer per second velocity due to 10 Tesla magnetic field) and due to the fact that a 9 inch solid rod injection molded has no directionality.
That's fine and all. The key point to get is that modified inertia doesn't make things move. It makes things easier to move. You still have to thrust against something in order to move.
Just a note: MiHsC does predict movement. If you assume conservatn of m'tum, and change m, v changes. See my papers on the flyby anomaly (in MNRAS, 2008) or the Tajmar effect (in EPL, 2011).I agree 100%. That's my reading of your papers, and you also make that clear in your blog. It follows from conservation of momentum.
From my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.
OK, but that is an experimental finding by Brady et.al. NASA presents no theory for it whatsoever.From my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
The paper says clearly and provides data that the dielectric is key. The question is how.
Now on the flipside, with no dielectric present, you would get uneven heat of the cavity from fore to aft and some movement of the device. How else could it move? Internal stresses would convert to wall strain. Where is the reaction mass?
I've attached a sketch of the Eagleworks cavity with the area ratios. Note that the base is 2.25 times larger than the throat. Does this mean that a particle oscillating between the base the throat at constant speed will impart 2.25 times the momentum on the throat as it does on the base?
Well and good, but if that particle has inertial mass of 1 unit as measured in the laboratory frame, what is it's inertial mass at the base? Of course it is 2.25 times that amount at the throat but what is the reference frame?
It is an important consideration because the answer will tell us how many oscillating particles are needed to produce the measured thrust.
For McCulloch's formula and for Shawyer's formula it is not only the ratio of the large and small flat areas that matter, but instead it is the dimensional difference of their reciprocals:
F = (PowerInput* Q / frequency) *(1/SmallRadius- 1/LargeRadius)
So you see, the dimensions of both surfaces enter the equation and not just their ratio
Of course, as it is obvious from the equation, they are inapplicable as the limit of SmallRadius --> 0 is approached, since the force goes to Infinity as that limit (a pointy cone) is approached.
EDIT: Also observe that it is not the surface area and it is not therefore the square of the radius of the flat surfaces that enters the formula but instead is the radius itself.
What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width.
I've attached a sketch of the Eagleworks cavity with the area ratios. Note that the base is 2.25 times larger than the throat. Does this mean that a particle oscillating between the base the throat at constant speed will impart 2.25 times the momentum on the throat as it does on the base?
Well and good, but if that particle has inertial mass of 1 unit as measured in the laboratory frame, what is it's inertial mass at the base? Of course it is 2.25 times that amount at the throat but what is the reference frame?
It is an important consideration because the answer will tell us how many oscillating particles are needed to produce the measured thrust.
For McCulloch's formula and for Shawyer's formula it is not only the ratio of the large and small flat areas that matter, but instead it is the dimensional difference of their reciprocals:
F = (PowerInput* Q / frequency) *(1/SmallDiameter- 1/LargeDiameter)
So you see, the dimensions of both surfaces enter the equation and not just their ratio
Of course, as it is obvious from the equation, they are inapplicable as the limit of SmallRadius --> 0 is approached, since the force goes to Infinity as that limit (a pointy cone) is approached.
EDIT: Also observe that it is not the surface area and it is not therefore the square of the radius of the flat surfaces that enters the formula but instead is the radius itself.QuoteWhat if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width.
This looks to me like a 1-D derivation. More Unruh waves would also fit is a larger area, not simply on a 1-D line. The equation would look the same in 2-D, with area replacing width. With a little algebra the equation becomes
F = PowerInput*Q * (Large area-Small area)/(frequency*Large area*Small area)
Not quite what I had before but the area difference is explicit.
Apparantly the dielectric block in Figure 15. was just the starting point for the COMSOLanalysis iteration
process used prior to assembly to determine the optimal thickness and diameter of the dielectric RF resonator disc located at the small end of the thruster.
From Figure 18:
"Cu Frustrum Test Configuration:
2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE Discs at small End"
I wonder if it will make a difference in the acceleration required to establish the Unruh waves within the cavity?
Apparantly the dielectric block in Figure 15. was just the starting point for the COMSOLanalysis iteration
process used prior to assembly to determine the optimal thickness and diameter of the dielectric RF resonator disc located at the small end of the thruster.
From Figure 18:
"Cu Frustrum Test Configuration:
2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE Discs at small End"
Fantastic information @notsosureofit !!!!!
You determined the material: Polyethylene (PE)
and the dimensions 6.25" x 1.06"
apparently what they used was 2 (two?) solid disks 6.25 inches in diameter by 1.06 inches thick
There was apparently no inner hole, or they did not record the inner diameter in the report?
.../...
For McCulloch's formula and for Shawyer's formula it is not only the ratio of the large and small flat areas that matter, but instead it is the dimensional difference of their reciprocals:
(1) F = (PowerInput* Q / frequency) *(1/SmallRadius- 1/LargeRadius)
So you see, the dimensions of both surfaces enter the equation and not just their ratio
Of course, as it is obvious from the equation, they are inapplicable as the limit of SmallRadius --> 0 is approached, since the force goes to Infinity as that limit (a pointy cone) is approached.
.../...
This looks to me like a 1-D derivation. More Unruh waves would also fit is a larger area, not simply on a 1-D line. The equation would look the same in 2-D, with area replacing width. With a little algebra the equation becomes
(2)F = PowerInput*Q * (Large area-Small area)/(frequency*Large area*Small area)
Not quite what I had before but the area difference is explicit.
Dimensional analysis (sanity check) :
(1) kg m /s² = kg m² /s^3 s /m OK (Q dimensionless)
(2) kg m /s² != kg m² /s^3 m² s /m² /m² = kg /s² the expression lacks a meter unit somewhere
From my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
The paper says clearly and provides data that the dielectric is key. The question is how.
Now on the flipside, with no dielectric present, you would get uneven heat of the cavity from fore to aft and some movement of the device. How else could it move? Internal stresses would convert to wall strain. Where is the reaction mass?
With @notsosureofit finding that the dielectric was PE, 1 inch thick, the chirality theory is back into consideration due to polyethylene being able to have spherulites melt-crystallised. (I still have reservations about the amount of chirality in commonly available samples)
http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/scm/scm4
(http://www.esrf.eu/files/live/sites/www/files/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/figures/figure_58_HL2011.jpg)
This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is
constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the
displacement of the CM of the spaceship is matched by a counteracting effect in the
universe to which it is coupled, so as not to violate the global CM constraint.
This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is
constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the
displacement of the CM of the spaceship is matched by a counteracting effect in the
universe to which it is coupled, so as not to violate the global CM constraint.
Ipso fatso, any copper clad "new universes" are not all that new. There's some fan clubbing going on in this thread, and so IMO, language should be a bit more carefully considered; "otherwise the cake is a lie".
Put another way, propellantless propulsion is not as easy as falling off a piece of cake.
Again (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269787#msg1269787), acceleration due to a change of inertia follows from the basic principle of conservation of momentum. There is no basic principle that for something to move "thrust must be involved" in Physics. Physics has conservation laws. Conservation of momentum is one of the basic laws of Physics, obeyed in General Relativity as well as in Quantum Mechanics. As we know from Physics and Engineering the relevant consideration is how such an acceleration (and resulting force) may compare with other accelerations (and forces) to produce a net acceleration (or force).
Scientific criticism may address thermodynamic considerations, information theory, and the arrow of time, for example, but never "thrust must be involved for something to move", there is no such principle in physics.
The language of physics is conservation laws, virtual work principles and mathematical equations and not words/and/or/music like "the cake is a lie."
"There is no basic principle that for something to move "thrust must be involved" in Physics."Except Newton's laws of motion........
As John so eloquently put it, "Ipso fatso... "
Love you guys!
The language of physics is conservation laws, virtual work principles and mathematical equations and not words/and/or/music like "the cake is a lie" or "you."
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length..." Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?
"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length...Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?[/quote]
QuoteQuote"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length...Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?
The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could!
"Except for the one case where we could speculate that the pig was injured."
@RotoSequence, I completely agree with you. That's exactly what I was taught at MIT. The "model" stands only as long as experiments verify it. The "model" falls immediately when experiments fail to verify it.QuoteQuote"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length...Why izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?
The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could!
"Except for the one case where we could speculate that the pig was injured."
It's enough to drive interest, that's for sure! Still, I really need to see the theory applied to new experiments to remove doubts about the physics of EM drives. Since those experiments are already being performed, I guess it's time to hurry up and wait. :)
Quote from: McCulloch"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length...Quote from: JFWhy izzat different from asking, what if pigs had wings?
The difference is that he goes ahead and predicts mathematically how well the "pigs" could fly. Then he compares his "flying pigs" to three cases where some strange flying thing was seen, and lo and behold, those strange flying things are flying just about the way the mathematics predicted that pigs with wings could!
Q = quality factor
Q is defined as:
Q = stored energy/energy lost per cycle.
Just for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere ???
Just for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere ???
Yes, good point. I also noticed that early on. My take on that is the following:
The fact that the predicted curve (in red) is off by a factor of ~34%, as I have previously addressed in Prof. McCulloch's blog is expected, since McCulloch's formula is a 1 Dimensional simplification of the full 3-D Modified Inertia formulation: as the simplified formula neglects the Unruh wave contribution from the sides of the cone (the simplified formula only uses the flat areas into consideration).
Just for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere ???
Yes, good point. I also noticed that early on. My take on that is the following:
The fact that the predicted curve (in red) is off by a factor of ~34%, as I have previously addressed in Prof. McCulloch's blog is expected, since McCulloch's formula is a 1 Dimensional simplification of the full 3-D Modified Inertia formulation: as the simplified formula neglects the Unruh wave contribution from the sides of the cone (the simplified formula only uses the flat areas into consideration).
The simplified 1 Dimensional formula of McCulloch's full theory is obviously an approximation since it leads to an infinite predicted force for the diameter of the smaller flat surface going to zero. So the 1D formula overpredicts the force (because it does not take into account the Unruh wave contribution from the curved surface of the cone).
What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width. The force carried by the photons then increases by this factor as they go from the narrow end (width w_small) towards the wide end (width w_big). The force difference between ends is
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
From this it is clear that L is the Unruh wave length and that the cavity walls are assumed to act like a Hubble horizon.
From this it is clear that L is the Unruh wave length and that the cavity walls are assumed to act like a Hubble horizon.
Fixed that for ya. This is an assumption or a speculation, not a proven fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
1) the microwaves-photons bouncing around within the EM Drive cavity have inertia (due to their momentum), which is determined by McCulloch's quantised inertia.
2) the microwaves-photons within the EM Drive cavity undergo momentum change ("acceleration") large enough to produce McCulloch inertial changes due to Unruh radiation . The momentum change ("acceleration") must be greater than 8 c^2 / (DiameterOfBaseOfCone).
3) In McCulloch's quantized inertia the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon (or within a local Rindler horizon). For the formula to apply the EM Drive cavity walls must act like a horizon.
This is understood by any structural engineer using beam equations instead of fully 3-D equations that are unsolvable without numerical analysis.
The usefulness of closed-form solutions ... is certainly understood by Aerospace Engineers.
And just in case you are unaware of it, the best estimate of the value of the Hubble constant has changed several times during the past 10 years. Current best estimate seems to be 2.19725E-18/s with uncertainty of about 5%.
It seems to be the bane of the theorist, shifting constants. (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html)
Just for fun, let's say the prediction curve is absolutely accurate and based on 70 years of experience w/ copper waveguides and resonators. Then the difference w/ these tapered chambers represent a loss of power which is going somewhere ???
The uncertainty experimental bars are very large and they overwhelm the very small frequency range that was explored.
What can we say about the nature of the acceleration coupling to the Unruh wave? (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html)
In McCulloch's quantised inertia the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon (or within a local Rindler horizon). For the formula to apply the EM Drive cavity walls must act like a horizon.
Overdue emphasis on physical explanations rather than mathematical examination of the data is misplaced, particularly with anomalous results of early experimental results with high uncertainty bars.In McCulloch's quantised inertia the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon (or within a local Rindler horizon). For the formula to apply the EM Drive cavity walls must act like a horizon.
So, you have to assume that the copper walls "must" act like a horizon. Which suggests an experiment to determine if they do or not, before erecting the thoretical house of cards too high.
Whether the experimental response is an experimental artifact or whether it is thrust that may or may not be useful eventually for space propulsion, it is a fact that it is very dependent on tuning the device to reach maximum amplitude resonance. As the amplitude of resonance is in general a very nonlinear response of frequency, and as in this case the researchers are purposely seeking high Q (low damping), the bandwidth of the response is very small and hence it is difficult to produce a consistent response. This has been brought up by Ludwick in his excellent post above. The uncertainty in the results has to do with resonance, high Q (low damping), small bandwidth, knowing at what precise frequency the maximum amplitude of resonance takes place and keeping the frequency at that critical frequency.The resonant frequency of the device in the paper by Brady, White, et al would to be determined by two things: The diameter of the loop antenna inside the device and to a lessor extent the dielectric material near it. Earlier I stated there had to be some kind of ceramic resonator inside. But I know think there isn't one and the concensus is that the dielectric is a large disk of polystyrene in the small end. A small loop will have a natural frequency based on its inductance and parasitic capactance. The Q of a loop antenna inside a shielded and grounded enclosure will be quite high. I think the different experimental runs shown in table E of the paper were done after changing that loop. The resonant frequency and Q were then determined with the network analyzer. Bob Ludwick stated it is very difficult to get a VCO precisely on frequency when the Q is high. A better method is to use the high Q cavity itself as the frequency determining element and to build a free-running high power RF oscillator around it. It will automatically lock to the resonant frequency and track any changes due to temperature. Low phase noise RF generators use tuneable cavities driven at low power. Whether that will produce a propellantless propulsion device is still TBD. I still think there are undiscovered thermal or magnetic errors in these experiments.
for high Q, Q ~ (ResonantFrequency) / (half-power bandwidth); so
(half-power bandwidth) ~ (ResonantFrequency) / Q
Earlier I stated there had to be some kind of ceramic resonator inside. But I know think there isn't one and the concensus is that the dielectric is a large disk ofpolystyrenein the small end.
Whether the experimental response is an experimental artifact or whether it is thrust that may or may not be useful eventually for space propulsion, it is a fact that it is very dependent on tuning the device to reach maximum amplitude resonance. As the amplitude of resonance is in general a very nonlinear response of frequency, and as in this case the researchers are purposely seeking high Q (low damping), the bandwidth of the response is very small and hence it is difficult to produce a consistent response. This has been brought up by Ludwick in his excellent post above. The uncertainty in the results has to do with resonance, high Q (low damping), small bandwidth, knowing at what precise frequency the maximum amplitude of resonance takes place and keeping the frequency at that critical frequency.The resonant frequency of the device in the paper by Brady, White, et al would to be determined by two things: The diameter of the loop antenna inside the device and to a lessor extent the dielectric material near it. Earlier I stated there had to be some kind of ceramic resonator inside. But I know think there isn't one and the concensus is that the dielectric is a large disk of polystyrene in the small end. A small loop will have a natural frequency based on its inductance and parasitic capactance. The Q of a loop antenna inside a shielded and grounded enclosure will be quite high. I think the different experimental runs shown in table E of the paper were done after changing that loop. The resonant frequency and Q were then determined with the network analyzer. Bob Ludwick stated it is very difficult to get a VCO precisely on frequency when the Q is high. A better method is to use the high Q cavity itself as the frequency determining element and to build a free-running high power RF oscillator around it. It will automatically lock to the resonant frequency and track any changes due to temperature. Low phase noise RF generators use tuneable cavities driven at low power. Whether that will produce a propellantless propulsion device is still TBD. I still think there are undiscovered thermal or magnetic errors in these experiments.
for high Q, Q ~ (ResonantFrequency) / (half-power bandwidth); so
(half-power bandwidth) ~ (ResonantFrequency) / Q
science is not only reason but also passion. ...
All my best
The Unruh effect is a surprising prediction of quantum field theory: From the point of view of an accelerating observer or detector, empty space contains a gas of particles at a temperature proportional to the acceleration. Direct experimental confirmation is difficult because the linear acceleration needed to reach a temperature 1 K is of order 1020 m/s2, but it is believed that an analog under centripetal acceleration is observed in the spin polarization of electrons in circular accelerators. Furthermore, the effect is necessary for consistency of the respective descriptions of observed phenomena, such as particle decay, in inertial and in accelerated reference frames; in this sense the Unruh effect does not require any verification beyond that of relativistic free field theory itself. The Unruh theory has had a major influence on our understanding of the proper relationship between mathematical formalism and (potentially) observable physics in the presence of gravitational fields, especially those near black holes.
I found a relatively new paper (dated 2014) on the Unruh effect that I could almost read mostly because it has more words than equations.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Unruh_effect)
Those thinking that the results are an experimental artifact should seek artifact explanations that are consistent with the experimental data being linearly dependent on just these three variables.
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
Those thinking that the results are an experimental artifact should seek artifact explanations that are consistent with the experimental data being linearly dependent on just these three variables.
Yes dr Rodal, working on that.
Better to keep a stiff upper lip, hey !
7 data points is sparse to conduct statistical analysisI both agree and disagree. Yes, I would prefer to have thousands of data points instead. However, given the fact that this is all the data we have, no statistical analysis of the data would be even worse. Ignoring the data would be worse. Using lots of words and pre-conceived ideas to explain the data would be much worse.
but you do a great job.Thanks. I wonder what comes next :)
Though I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate to conduct the regressions in log log plane, as the low values dispersions tend to be squashed by the low absolute levels, while their relative dispersion around the (linear) predicted values seem more natural to me : log(experimental/predicted) or equivalently log(experimental)-log(predicted) (then squared as for the least square regression). A linearly scaling formula that predicts 1.0µN for a 1.1µN measure has as much error than predicting 1N instead of actual 1.1N. Maybe this is already the case in your R^2 results ?In general I don't like log-log regressions because just about everything looks great regressed that way.
QuotedF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
Which boils down to dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
P - Power
Q - Quality factor
f - Drive frequency
w_big - diameter of the big end
W_small - diameter of the small end.
My goodness, where is the Unruh radiation, the Hubble horizon, the Casimir effect or any other strange factors?
The only way MiHsC enters the picture is because it led Prof. M to the above equation.
As it stands the equation can be written as
dF = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
Does that mean anything helpful?
It is an argument against thermal explanations (stored power instead of loss power)
The geometrical factor (that came from McCulloch's theory) needs to be explained by magnetic, artifact or any other explanation
It is an argument against thermal explanations, because the higher the Q, the less power that it is dissipated (into heat to the walls and elsewhere).QuoteIt is an argument against thermal explanations (stored power instead of loss power)
Perhaps, but it is exactly the same equation as always, just arranged differently.
QuotedF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
Which boils down to dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
P - Power
Q - Quality factor
f - Drive frequency
w_big - diameter of the big end
W_small - diameter of the small end.
My goodness, where is the Unruh radiation, the Hubble horizon, the Casimir effect or any other strange factors?
The only way MiHsC enters the picture is because it led Prof. M to the above equation.
As it stands the equation can be written as
dF = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
Does that mean anything helpful?
...
Please re-write or withdraw your comment about the Chinese.
QuotedF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
Which boils down to dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
P - Power
Q - Quality factor
f - Drive frequency
w_big - diameter of the big end
W_small - diameter of the small end.
My goodness, where is the Unruh radiation, the Hubble horizon, the Casimir effect or any other strange factors?
The only way MiHsC enters the picture is because it led Prof. M to the above equation.
As it stands the equation can be written as
dF = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
Does that mean anything helpful?
dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)) = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
...
Thank you for the log log plots. Agree that in log log everything looks too good... don't know if it holds for some eminent statistician (which I am not) but I find the log log more convincing as we have very few diversity if the 3 Brady et al entries get squashed. Save the outlier, the other two still look good relative to much lower magnitudes overall.
Still wondering what to do with ranges in the tabulated data...
QuotedF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
Which boils down to dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
P - Power
Q - Quality factor
f - Drive frequency
w_big - diameter of the big end
W_small - diameter of the small end.
My goodness, where is the Unruh radiation, the Hubble horizon, the Casimir effect or any other strange factors?
The only way MiHsC enters the picture is because it led Prof. M to the above equation.
As it stands the equation can be written as
dF = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
Does that mean anything helpful?
dF = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)) = [ Stored power/w_big - Stored power/w_small ] / f
where stored power = Q * Power.
OK, but this is telling a huge amount of information.
Why should the stored power give you the force?
It should not if the force is a thermal artifact.
It should not if the force is an artifact due to losses in the medium.
It does leave the door open for the force being due to being an artifact due to resonance.
OK, let's try to narrow this down.
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small))
L= 6.6, 9.0 and 9.9 inches
w_small = 6.6 inches
what do you want for w_big ?
OK, I'm using metric units.QuoteOK, let's try to narrow this down.
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small))
L= 6.6, 9.0 and 9.9 inches
w_small = 6.6 inches
what do you want for w_big ?
Use the same w_small and w_big that you have been using. My measurement of w_big =9.9 inches. Those two values, w_big and w_small come directly from Prof. M's formula, don't change them. The length that is uncertain in my mind is L.
So I will use
L=0.16764, 0.2286, 0.25146 m with the same numbers previously used for w_big and w_small
QUESTION: Do you want me to use this L's only for NASA Eagleworks or also for Shawyer and China?
Or do you want to think what values you want for them UK and China?
[Please assume that the Chinese used the same dimensions as the larger Shawyer device, which makes sense from their text and also because Chinese used 1 KW]
OK, I'm using metric units.QuoteOK, let's try to narrow this down.
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small))
L= 6.6, 9.0 and 9.9 inches
w_small = 6.6 inches
what do you want for w_big ?
Use the same w_small and w_big that you have been using. My measurement of w_big =9.9 inches. Those two values, w_big and w_small come directly from Prof. M's formula, don't change them. The length that is uncertain in my mind is L.
So I will use
L=0.16764, 0.2286, 0.25146 m with the same numbers previously used for w_big and w_small
QUESTION: Do you want me to use this L's only for NASA Eagleworks or also for Shawyer and China?
Or do you want to think what values you want for them UK and China?
[Please assume that the Chinese used the same dimensions as the larger Shawyer device, which makes sense from their text and also because Chinese used 1 KW]
These L's are the dimensions of the NASA Eagleworks device. I don't know the dimensions of the Shawyer device. If you do, then use them consistently. That is, small diameter, Cavity length and Large diameter.
...
Thank you for the log log plots. Agree that in log log everything looks too good... don't know if it holds for some eminent statistician (which I am not) but I find the log log more convincing as we have very few diversity if the 3 Brady et al entries get squashed. Save the outlier, the other two still look good relative to much lower magnitudes overall.
Still wondering what to do with ranges in the tabulated data...
Though I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate to conduct the regressions in log log plane, as the low values dispersions tend to be squashed by the low absolute levels, while their relative dispersion around the (linear) predicted values seem more natural to me : log(experimental/predicted) or equivalently log(experimental)-log(predicted) (then squared as for the least square regression). A linearly scaling formula that predicts 1.0µN for a 1.1µN measure has as much error than predicting 1N instead of actual 1.1N. Maybe this is already the case in your R^2 results ?Here are Log Log plots with the Brady 1937 GHz outlier removed. It improves the R^2, foremost for the Q regression. Still the same conclusion regarding the frequency data having a low R^2, even with the outlier removed.
In McCulloch's quantised inertia the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon (or within a local Rindler horizon). For the formula to apply the EM Drive cavity walls must act like a horizon.
Overdue emphasis on physical explanations rather than mathematical examination of the data is misplaced, particularly with anomalous results of early experimental results with high uncertainty bars.
An objective, cool, mathematical viewpoint (rather than passionate subjective beliefs) is called for.
McCulloch's simple formula, without any fudge factors, and with a minimum of parameters, does a much better job at predicting the experimental results than anything else presented so far...
4) So far, all the experimental data variation in the US (NASA Eagleworks, including the statistical outlier), the UK and China can be explained solely in terms of just three variables:
A) (1/DiameterOfSmallBase-1/DiameterOfBigBase)
B) Q (resonance quality factor)
C) Power Input
OK, I'm using metric units.QuoteOK, let's try to narrow this down.
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small))
L= 6.6, 9.0 and 9.9 inches
w_small = 6.6 inches
what do you want for w_big ?
Use the same w_small and w_big that you have been using. My measurement of w_big =9.9 inches. Those two values, w_big and w_small come directly from Prof. M's formula, don't change them. The length that is uncertain in my mind is L.
So I will use
L=0.16764, 0.2286, 0.25146 m with the same numbers previously used for w_big and w_small
QUESTION: Do you want me to use this L's only for NASA Eagleworks or also for Shawyer and China?
Or do you want to think what values you want for them UK and China?
[Please assume that the Chinese used the same dimensions as the larger Shawyer device, which makes sense from their text and also because Chinese used 1 KW]
These L's are the dimensions of the NASA Eagleworks device. I don't know the dimensions of the Shawyer device. If you do, then use them consistently. That is, small diameter, Cavity length and Large diameter.
We might as well do the best job we can at the outset rather than re-visit later on.
Here is a link to Shawyer's paper: http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf
please let me know what L dimensions you want to use for the smaller and the larger Shawyer devices
Thanks
Seeking clarity here.No, it looks like I didn't get my point across well at all. On the contrary, data is very well explained in terms of those three variables in McCulloch's equation. No need to run thousands of data points.Quote4) So far, all the experimental data variation in the US (NASA Eagleworks, including the statistical outlier), the UK and China can be explained solely in terms of just three variables:So...if I am following this correctly, the logical thing for the research teams to do would be to run thousands (?) of tests in which these three points differ somewhat, ideally in a vacuum. Aka...different 'truncated cone sizes', different frequencies (?), degrees of power input, that sort of thing, right? And then a much clearer picture as to what is going on should emerge. Is that a fair assessment?
A) (1/DiameterOfSmallBase-1/DiameterOfBigBase)
B) Q (resonance quality factor)
C) Power Input
Main experimental need is to be able to tune precisely to the (initially unknown) frequency that gives highest amplitude. And then for the device to stay tuned to that frequency and not deviate from it while very high resonance with very low damping is achieved. This was very difficult for researchers to accomplish on a reliable basis. Once that is accomplished the need is then for NASA to make EM Drive that runs at 1000 watts (like in the UK and China) instead of 20 watts to produce much larger forces.
Secondary need is to explain precisely what is the physical effect that is producing the thrust measurements.
While stumbling through Shawyer's papers, I reached the conclusion that his thrust equation, after substituting the parameter names that Prof. M used, is:
T = 2*So * P*Q/c *(RF wavelength/w_big - RF wavelength/w_small) or
T = 2*So *P*Q/f *(1/w_big - 1/w_small)
where So = (1 - (RF wavelength^2)/(w_big*w_small))^-1
In other words, Shawyer's thrust model differs from Prof. M's thrust model by a multiplicative factor of 2*So .
That of course assumes that I interpreted Shawyer's definition of terms correctly.
As a veteran member of the American Statistical Association...
Quote from: some random guy on an intertube thread...As a veteran member of the American Statistical Association...
Oh right. Everybody knows that the chances of a coin landing on its edge are fifty-fifty. You gotta have better credentials than that!
Quote from: some random guy on an intertube thread...As a veteran member of the American Statistical Association...
Oh right. Everybody knows that the chances of a coin landing on its edge are fifty-fifty. You gotta have better credentials than that!
I thought those were the chances of a coin landing head or tails?
does this pertain?
arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3267
...
I get.
Shawyer Experimental Demonstrator
Dimension - meters meters
w_big, in. 0.1600 0.2800
w_small, in 0.1050 0.0778
height, in 0.1700 0.3811
w_small, external view. 0.1711
The Demonstrator has a constant external small end diameter for about half the length. I speculate that the taper continues internally with the constant diameter section there for whatever reason. That constant diameter section is about 0.1711 meter. Did the Chinese do both sizes?
Edit: I don't think you should use demonstrator numbers. W_big is OK, it's from the text but w_small is probably to small and height to large. I expect the taper stops in the cylindrical section at a height of about 300 mm based on the Experimental and Eagleworks device ratios.. Point is, I can't tell the dimensions of the demonstration device cavity because of the construction. Garbage in, garbage out so just don't use the above Demonstrator numbers I guess.
An interpretation of Shawyer's Lambda0 as RF wavelength would lead to a factor of 2 / (1 - (RF wavelength^2)/(w_big*w_small)) ~ 6 for NASA's truncated cone, multiplying the present equation, leading to predicted forces that would be 6 times larger than the experimentally measured ones.
does this pertain?
arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3267
Pertain? We're sorry all attendants are still busy...
In this case the scientific/engineering judgement comes in knowing what is the difference in mode shapes between the geometry below and the geometry of a perfect truncated cone. I made that assessment, so I included the NASA Eagleworks truncated cones and both Shawyer truncated cones in the data. What matters mostly are the flat base surfaces of the truncated cone. This is supported by the data I have previously shown.
@RodalQuoteIn this case the scientific/engineering judgement comes in knowing what is the difference in mode shapes between the geometry below and the geometry of a perfect truncated cone. I made that assessment, so I included the NASA Eagleworks truncated cones and both Shawyer truncated cones in the data. What matters mostly are the flat base surfaces of the truncated cone. This is supported by the data I have previously shown.
Ok. If I assume the cavity shape of the Demonstrator is the same shape as the Experimental model, then using the published text numbers for the overall diameters, 280 mm and 160 mm, by ratio I calculate the Demonstrator dimensions as:
w_big = 0.28 meters
w_small = 0.18375 meters
height = 0.2975 meters
These are most likely usable numbers but feel free to use the best data you have available.
My problem with this is, "How does he justify larger dimensions on the resonate cavity while using the same or higher frequency drive?"
It must be buried in his theory somewhere.
Ok.No, what I showed was that the variation with frequency overwhelmed the ability to regress the data because of the nonlinearity of the amplitude vs frequency curve and the paucity of frequency data.
Now, didn't you show that thrust was not strongly dependent on frequency? But photon momentum is strongly dependent on frequency (as is energy) so does this imply that thrust is not strongly dependent on photon momentum? Or can your approach separate momentum and energy?
Ok.No, what I showed was that the variation with frequency overwhelmed the ability to regress the data because of the nonlinearity of the amplitude vs frequency curve and the paucity of frequency data.
Now, didn't you show that thrust was not strongly dependent on frequency? But photon momentum is strongly dependent on frequency (as is energy) so does this imply that thrust is not strongly dependent on photon momentum? Or can your approach separate momentum and energy?
On the contrary, the measured thrust is most dependent on amplitude of the resonance curve and the amplitude is very nonlinearly dependent on frequency.
Ok.No, what I showed was that the variation with frequency overwhelmed the ability to regress the data because of the nonlinearity of the amplitude vs frequency curve and the paucity of frequency data.
Now, didn't you show that thrust was not strongly dependent on frequency? But photon momentum is strongly dependent on frequency (as is energy) so does this imply that thrust is not strongly dependent on photon momentum? Or can your approach separate momentum and energy?
On the contrary, the measured thrust is most dependent on amplitude of the resonance curve and the amplitude is very nonlinearly dependent on frequency.
Ok that makes sense.
...
McCulloc's formula is indicated with the arrow, stars show decent candidates.
We note that all selected solutions with both a decent absolute magnitude (mean near 0) and low deviation all share the same factors F = Q P/c times something in meters^-1. This geometric factor, (1/b - 1/a) for McCulloch, allows for a lot of variations while still giving correct predictions. This is not surprising since L and a and b all are in a comparable range, this is hard to confirm a clear relation. While (1/b - 1/a) has a good look compared to others, I wouldn't say we have to explain why we should have this particular formula. More data required. On the other hand the QP/c term (and probably QPL/c) seems a clear winner to be accounted for.
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 0.15 0.61 *
a^-1 b^-2 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-1 + L^-1)^-2 0.13 0.58 *
compared to McCulloch's
a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 0.46 0.61 <-
Great frobnicating
Yes, Applause for your great effort. --- now, if it could only talk ...
I'll try to convert these to conventional nomenclature.Quotea^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 0.15 0.61 *
a^-1 b^-2 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-1 + L^-1)^-2 0.13 0.58 *
compared to McCulloch's
a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 0.46 0.61 <-
AIUI - a = w_big, b = w_small and the others are as always, so:
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 0.15 0.61 *
force = QP/fc * (L^2/ab^2)/(a^2 + L^2)
and
a^-1 b^-2 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-1 + L^-1)^-2 0.13 0.58 *
force = QP/fc * (L/a*b^2)/(1/a + 1/L)^2
and McCulloch's formula,
a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 0.46 0.61 <-
force = QP/fc * L * (1/a - 1/b) which is not what you wrote.
and this is interesting, but I'm still wondering about the effect of L = cavity height, which this doesn't address.
It is even a mystery why NASA Eagleworks chose to test at those particular frequencies, as remarked by Ludwick.
MeasuredFrequency = c/L; therefore L = c / MeasuredFrequency;
OK, but that becomes @aero's formula then. McCulloch's formula has MeasuredFrequency = c/L; therefore L = c / MeasuredFrequencyQuoteMeasuredFrequency = c/L; therefore L = c / MeasuredFrequency;
But I don't buy that. L need only have units of length. That's why I asked you to test L = cavity height .
And by the way, I am not kernosabe. Or kemosabe either .Oh, OK, I fixed that :)
Try again.
AIUI - a = w_big, b = w_small and the others are as always, so:
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 0.15 0.61 *
force = QP/c * (L^2/ab^2)/(a^2 + L^2)
a^-1 b^-2 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 (a^-1 + L^-1)^-2 0.13 0.58 *
force = QP/c * (L/a*b^2)/(1/a + 1/L)^2
and McCulloch's formula,
a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 0.46 0.61 <-
force = QP/c * L * (1/a - 1/b) which is not what you wrote.
and this is interesting, but I'm still wondering about the effect of L = cavity height, which this doesn't address.QuoteMeasuredFrequency = c/L; therefore L = c / MeasuredFrequency;
But I don't buy that. L need only have units of length. That's why I asked you to test L = cavity height .
I'm surprised nobody bites on this nice looking one
F = 13100 P/c ab(1/b-1/a)^2
or
F = 13100 P/c (a-b)^2/(ab)
( a^1 b^1 L^0 Q^0 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^2 ) / mean value (without log)
-> 1.16 1.05 1.05 0.71 1.35 2.42 0.34
For comparison, McCulloch's (which is great, I don't contest)
(a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 ) / mean value (without log)
-> 0.50 1.16 0.81 0.87 0.89 3.95 0.70
(as per the order of the seven rows tabulated data)
Alright there is a big fudge factor of 13100, that looks like the ballpark of Q values, but note that it doesn't move, it is still 13100 even with Q values going from 5900 to 50000. First and fourth values 1.16 and 0.71 ratio 1.63, no more relative deviation than MiHsC 0.50 and 0.87 ratio 1.74
To me this is indicative that this former formula is as good at predicting an effect independent of Q than the later at indicating a linear dependency on Q. Introducing a constant is a lot of information added to fit the data (considering the sparsity of data the risk of overfitting is great) but it also discards two parameters Q and Lambda (or frequency) so is simpler in this respect. What would 13100 stand for ? Let me see... something vaguely around the squared inverse of the fine structure constant for instance ?
Do I have an agenda ? Of course I have an agenda. But this isn't numerology.
And this can wait until tomorrow.
I'm surprised nobody bites on this nice looking one
F = 13100 P/c ab(1/b-1/a)^2
or
F = 13100 P/c (a-b)^2/(ab)
( a^1 b^1 L^0 Q^0 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^2 ) / mean value (without log)
-> 1.16 1.05 1.05 0.71 1.35 2.42 0.34
For comparison, McCulloch's (which is great, I don't contest)
(a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 ) / mean value (without log)
-> 0.50 1.16 0.81 0.87 0.89 3.95 0.70
(as per the order of the seven rows tabulated data)
Alright there is a big fudge factor of 13100, that looks like the ballpark of Q values, but note that it doesn't move, it is still 13100 even with Q values going from 5900 to 50000. First and fourth values 1.16 and 0.71 ratio 1.63, no more relative deviation than MiHsC 0.50 and 0.87 ratio 1.74
To me this is indicative that this former formula is as good at predicting an effect independent of Q than the later at indicating a linear dependency on Q. Introducing a constant is a lot of information added to fit the data (considering the sparsity of data the risk of overfitting is great) but it also discards two parameters Q and Lambda (or frequency) so is simpler in this respect. What would 13100 stand for ? Let me see... something vaguely around the squared inverse of the fine structure constant for instance ?
Do I have an agenda ? Of course I have an agenda. But this isn't numerology.
And this can wait until tomorrow.
Well, obviously
(a-b)^2/(ab) = ( (a/b -1) + (b/a -1))
or
(a-b)^2/(ab) = ( (AR - 1) + (1/AR - 1))
which is a symmetrized measure of the distance from unity of the aspect ratio (AR = a / b) between the two diameters of the bases of the truncated cone. (This measure is zero for AR =1 and it goes to Infinity either as AR --> Infinity or as AR --> 0)
But how can the photons produce a net thrust force ?
and a force exceeding the one of a photon rocket ?
The cat already prescribed MeasuredFrequency = c/L; therefore L = c / MeasuredFrequency;
In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) is modified as mi=m(1-L/4T) where m is the unmodified mass, L is the Unruh wavelength determined by the acceleration, and T is the Hubble distance
snip
What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? Then the inertial mass of the photons would increase towards the cavity's wide end, since more Unruh waves would fit there, since mi=m(1-L/2w), where w is the cavity width. The force carried by the photons then increases by this factor as they go from the narrow end (width w_small) towards the wide end (width w_big). The force difference between ends is
dF = (PQ/c)*((L/w_big)-(L/w_small)) = (PQ/f)*((1/w_big)-(1/w_small)).
If we consider L to be the RF drive wavelength, then how do we justify talking about the Unruh effect and how it may interact with the photons to cause the excessive thrust? If L is not the RF wavelength then it could be just about anything although it seems that it could be related to cavity dimensions. Ask Prof. M, but I think it doesn't have to be.OK point well taken. You are correct, that is the Unruh wavelength explanation.
And by the way, I am not kernosabe. Or kemosabe either.
If we consider L to be the RF drive wavelength, then how do we justify talking about the Unruh effect and how it may interact with the photons to cause the excessive thrust? If L is not the RF wavelength then it could be just about anything although it seems that it could be related to cavity dimensions. Ask Prof. M, but I think it doesn't have to be.
OK point well taken. You are correct, that is the Unruh wavelength explanation.
And by the way, I am not kernosabe. Or kemosabe either.
He knoweth not for whom the bell tolleth.If we consider L to be the RF drive wavelength, then how do we justify talking about the Unruh effect and how it may interact with the photons to cause the excessive thrust? If L is not the RF wavelength then it could be just about anything although it seems that it could be related to cavity dimensions. Ask Prof. M, but I think it doesn't have to be.
OK point well taken. You are correct, that is the Unruh wavelength explanation.
In my equationless style, I'm still not on board with the HYPOTHETICAL Unruh wave explanation. Further, since there must be an integral number of these faith based waves in the cavity, and since resonance is THE operative factor, there should have been, from the summa cavea arachis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut#Peanut_gallery) at any rate, much tighter control over the bandwidth of the wavelength sent to the device.
What you guys are talking about is not making sense. Not sayin' you're talking nonsense. You're still talking about the copper geometry as having some special refractive index which works at 1.9xxx GHz, using waves which have not been seen.
It's rough being me. But somebody has to do it.
OK point well taken. You are correct, that is the Unruh wavelength explanation.
Here is the practical problem.
There are an infinite number of Unruh wavelengths, and they have an energy spectrum.
....
I wrote a small program to generate some exhaustive search on formulas upon the relevant factors then sieving those formulas that fit the available data. This is completely theoretically agnostic but it does check for dimensional consistency (as far as kg m s units are concerned). The search goes on for any product of the terms a b L Q P F c (respectively w_big w_small wavelength=c/Freq Power Thrust Speed_of_light) with all possible whole exponents from -2 to +2 (going through 0) and tries to equal 1 (with the experimental data). It also tries an "extended" term (exterm) that is a combination of 2 homogeneous terms ( that is a b or L ) at any power -2 to +2 through any of the operators sum difference geometrical_average, and then to any power -2 to +2.
This does cover the formula by McCulloch but not Shawyer's.
Example of understanding the following dumps : McCulloch's formula reads
a^0 b^0 L^1 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 |a^-1 - b^-1|^1 = 1
or said otherwise F = P Q L/c (1/b - 1/a)
Note that the difference operator for the extended term is enclosed in absolute value (manual permutation needed to remove it).
The sieve goes like that : use the formula on each of the seven data points to generate a value hopefully close to 1. If it is not close to 1 but close to a given value (say 2) for all the data points then we have a constant fudge factor, but if the standard deviation around it is small this is still interesting : a strong relation still holds between the terms in such formula. The mean and deviation are calculated in log space, that is a mean of 0 is a best result (formula gives values around 1) while a mean of -1 or +1 says the formula gives values e (=2.72) times too low or too big.
Data input :
/// With maxes for ranges
t_data data_in[Nrec] =
{
// w_big w_small lambda Q power force
{"Shawyer (2008) a", 1.0 , 16 , 8 , C/2.45 , 5900 , 850 , 16 },
{"Shawyer (2008) b", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 45000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE011", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.5 , 32000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE012", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 50000 , 1000 , 315 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) a", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.933 , 7320 , 16.9 , 0.0912 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) b", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.937 , 18100 , 16.7 , 0.0501 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) c", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.88 , 22000 , 2.6 , 0.0554 },
};
...
I would like to see how the formula parameters behave with this outlier taken out.
QuoteI would like to see how the formula parameters behave with this outlier taken out.
Yes. The Brady outlier certainly shows us something but it doesn't show us how the thruster works ideally. It shows how it works when something goes wrong. That's important to know but not useful in the context of discovering the ideal operational model and parameters.
For our purposes now of discovering the ideal operational model and parameters, we should avoid outliers when they have been identified. Once the data is evaluated with Brady b" removed we can consider if perhaps Shawyer a" isa less than ideal case as well.
@aero McCulloch's tableDemonstrator by ratio
w_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREE
w_small = 0.18375 meters 0.04 meters DISAGREE
height = 0.2975 meters
Demonstrator by photo
w_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREE
w_small = 0.0778 meters 0.04 metersDISAGREEWhatever works
height = 0.381 meters
Experimental by photo
w_big 0.16 meters 0.16 metersDISAGREAgree
w_small 0.0778 meters 0.08 meters AGREE
height 0.177 meters
You don't think Shawyer just extended the big end of the Experimental model to make the Demonstrator model, do you?
Where is the photograph you used for Shawyer's demonstrator drive?
@aero McCulloch's tableDemonstrator by ratio
w_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREE
w_small = 0.18375 meters 0.04 meters DISAGREE
height = 0.2975 meters
Demonstrator by photo
w_big = 0.28 meters 0.28 meters AGREE
w_small = 0.0778 meters 0.04 metersDISAGREEWhatever works
height = 0.381 meters
Experimental by photo
w_big 0.16 meters 0.16 metersDISAGREAgree
w_small 0.0778 meters 0.08 meters AGREE
height 0.177 meters
You don't think Shawyer just extended the big end of the Experimental model to make the Demonstrator model, do you?
I think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated cone
...
This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? :D
.....
QuoteWhere is the photograph you used for Shawyer's demonstrator drive?
At the bottom of the page here: http://emdrive.com/ (http://emdrive.com/)
...
This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? :D
.....
What statistical argument can you use to state that those two are outliers?
...We still would like to hear whether there is an argument that can be made, explaining the formulas that model the experimental results either as:
Waiting for adjusted inputs...
OK, but I wear my humorous hat only with Kernosabe :)It was a sarcastical argument, not a statistical argument. I'm not seriously considering to lower the data count to 4 samples....
This is quite good except Shawyer's results : should we skip those two outliers ? :D
.....
What statistical argument can you use to state that those two are outliers?
QuoteI think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated cone
I don't know. I speculate that knowing the big diameter, we might be able to back the small diameter out of Shawyer's performance model using his published data. He does say that the thrust agrees with his performance model and it does use diameters of the ends of the cavity.
QuoteI think that the only length that is relevant is the length of the truncated cone itself and not the length of the cylinder attached to it, so "Length" means Length of truncated cone
I don't know. I speculate that knowing the big diameter, we might be able to back the small diameter out of Shawyer's performance model using his published data. He does say that the thrust agrees with his performance model and it does use diameters of the ends of the cavity.
Do you agree that there is a cylindrical section to Shawyer's Demonstrator EM Drive that has the same diameter throughout? and that the diameter of this cylindrical section is the same as the diameter of the small base of the truncated cone? And therefore the smaller diameter at the end of the cavity is the same as the diameter of the small base of the truncated cone?
Did I miss something ?
If my logic above is not faulty, then our large discrepancy (a factor 2 between us and a factor of 4 between my estimate and McCulloch's estimate) is a matter of measurement and scaling. Of the photograph you and I are using is not the Demonstrator Drive, and Prof. McCulloch has better information as to what the dimensions of the Demonstrator Drive are?
One of us must be closest to the real answer ...
(http://emdrive.com/images/emdrive.jpg)
....Prof. McCulloch has answered that "I think I estimated 4cm using the design factor, probably wrongly. Your photographic method is better"
I don't know. I did post asking Prof M if he had better information. I also emailed Shawyer and Juan's university asking the same question. We will see if anyone responds.
I had assumed that the tapered cavity extended within the cylindrical section but you may be right. However, as was pointed out by Notsosureofit, it looks like there is some sort of mechanism in the cylindrical section. If there is a moveable small end, then I can't guess what the interior of the cylinder looks like.
For the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)
For the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)
Can you also please estimate the OD of the big diameter base end?
(Using your same method)
Another explanation for the EM Drive experimental findings based on a theory that allows electromagnetic fields to modify the space-time metric of General Relativity:
http://inspirehep.net/record/1220790/files/arXiv%3A1302.5690.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.5029.pdf
Another explanation for the EM Drive experimental findings based on a theory that allows electromagnetic fields to modify the space-time metric of General Relativity:
http://inspirehep.net/record/1220790/files/arXiv%3A1302.5690.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.5029.pdf
The proposed experiment looks exceptionally simple. Has this experiment been conducted? If there were positive results, the fringe forums would be ablaze with excitement over the possibilities.
If there is a moveable small end, then I can't guess what the interior of the cylinder looks like.
For the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)
15.3 cm using the RF connector, but not sure of the right connector and worse camera angle, sooo ?
I calculated as follows:For the O.D. of the copper straight section I get 18.8 cm if that helps (using the pot as ref)
15.3 cm using the RF connector, but not sure of the right connector and worse camera angle, sooo ?
I offer to try my hand at dimensional analysis. What is being used as the basis for the dimensional extrapolations you guys have come up with?
I would start with the nut diameter. These are likely to be standard, and unlikely to be guessed at wrongly by a factor of two.
...We still would like to hear whether there is an argument that can be made, explaining the formulas that model the experimental results either as:
Waiting for adjusted inputs...
A) an experimental artifact
B) a photon rocket
You can use the whole data (including the outlier) if you like to make the argument. For the photon rocket argument I don't understand how the photons get out of the EM Drive and how does it get to do better than a perfect photon rocket.
Can you make an experimental artifact argument?
...We still would like to hear whether there is an argument that can be made, explaining the formulas that model the experimental results either as:
Waiting for adjusted inputs...
A) an experimental artifact
B) a photon rocket
You can use the whole data (including the outlier) if you like to make the argument. For the photon rocket argument I don't understand how the photons get out of the EM Drive and how does it get to do better than a perfect photon rocket.
Can you make an experimental artifact argument?
Me ? Not really.
Right now my bet would be something in the line of induced DC component interacting magnetically with either earth magnetic field and/or local field (damping system) and/or local ferromagnetic chamber walls. Those are words so this is not an argument yet. Please don't argue, yet.
But if anyone wants to help me putting up this argument (and then argue) :
for this argument I would need to know if there is a possibility of non linearities around 0 of conductivity in skin of cavity for strong RF fields. Even one part per thousand could be interesting. A small asymmetry in hysteresis for instance. Asking Mulletron and a few search of the available literature didn't float anything like that, at least for metal conductors (rather into semiconductors with more or less exotic composition, not plain copper). Or for dielectrics but I guess they don't have DC conduction to speak of. I don't know if it is because there is no such effect at all in conductors, or because this effect is generally ignored, or because it would be a complex special case of dielectric (non linear) very close conductor (eddy currents). How tight the dielectrics are encased in copper ? Also I would need to understand the geometry of eddy currents, and my EM course is long ago and wasn't specifically on microwave cavities or skin effects. So I'm a bit disarmed.
Can we do summary, for the seven data points, of qualitative boolean or discrete values like
1/ vacuum ?
2/ magnetic damping ?
3/ ferromagnetic walls nearby (vacuum chamber or else) ?
4/ offboard generator ?5/ inverted pendulum or torsion balance ?
6/ thermal isolation casing ?
7/ ... ?
at least for all such boolean or discrete values for which we have values or likely guess for most of the data points ?
Could we also throw in the negative results while we are at it : Brady without dielectric,
Brito/Marini/Galian without magnetic damping, what else ?
Maybe we could then see some patterns, some already discussed, maybe some others ...
The upper gizmo is the motor and at the bottom it's driving a variable resistor as position feedback. It probably was fed w/ a fixed frequency generator.
Hanging out the back is prob a limit switch.
....
Right now my bet would be something in the line of induced DC component interacting magnetically with either earth magnetic field ...
If you have an adjustable cavity that allows you to tune it. However if your microwave source is not stable then you are are screwed. cf Rodal and his mate saying that RF emitters with a variance of < 1Hz are available but not used in the current experiments.The upper gizmo is the motor and at the bottom it's driving a variable resistor as position feedback. It probably was fed w/ a fixed frequency generator.
Hanging out the back is prob a limit switch.
Shawyer's demonstrator : isn't it possible that it's a thread driving a plate in longitudinal position inside the cylinder, that is an adjustable length cavity ? Is that what you mean by "fed with a fixed frequency" : the cavity is adjusted to fit the frequency and not the inverse ? Isn't all that documented by Shawyer ? Or is it in NDA ?
Eliminateok5/ inverted pendulum or torsion balance ?
I did a fully coupled nonlinear analysis and the problem cannot be explained solely on that basis.
What it can do is to magnify another effect.
Concerning: <<Could we also throw in the negative results while we are at it : Brady without dielectric>>I concede I might not have the chance to look more than briefly at your posts concerning that. Are we to think that "dielectric vs no_dielectric" is to be considered irrelevant, or that "all relevant results used dielectric" ? Then we have a boolean column full of yes. That is an information by itself.
No, that is not a relevant result, did you have a chance to look at my posts regarding that? Conducted first in the their testing program, at a completely different frequency, way off the scale to the right on their S22 chart and their COMSOL Finite Element predictions. I don't think it has anything to do with the dielectric. At that frequency they didn't report any force measurements whatsoever (with or without). Basically they were flying blind, they did that experiment at a different frequency, they did not report any Q at that frequency, and from the S22 plot it is likely there was no resonance at that frequency
Concerning <<Brito/Marini/Galian>>Yeah alright, I forgot we had two different approaches to deal with.
Not relevant to microwave cavities. Not relevant to Shawyer, China or NASA Eagleworks experiments. Only relevant to Woodward/March MET.
Concerning <<6/ thermal isolation casing ?>>Well as I understood Brito et all negative results, they used a phase changing thing around their system to have thermal isolation during the runs. Was that it, should I read again? But since this experiment is not relevant, discard this criteria (I guess nobody else doing microwave cavities have been through that trouble, so this is a boolean column full of no).
What is that? Please elaborate
....
Right now my bet would be something in the line of induced DC component interacting magnetically with either earth magnetic field ...
Interaction with the Earth's magnetic field is also first in my list of experimental artifacts.
Why would an interaction with the Earths' magnetic field be oriented along the cone axis and would favor a larger difference between the diameters of the bases of the truncated cone?
I'm not too concerned with the order of magnitude at this point in time because the inverted torsional pendulum can amplify whatever effect is thrusting the device (maybe even dark matter :o). I would think that the main thing to do is to find a classical experimental artifact that also acts along the axis of the cone, that depends on orientation of the big base and that it is larger with increasing difference between the base diameters.....
Right now my bet would be something in the line of induced DC component interacting magnetically with either earth magnetic field ...
Interaction with the Earth's magnetic field is also first in my list of experimental artifacts.
Why would an interaction with the Earths' magnetic field be oriented along the cone axis and would favor a larger difference between the diameters of the bases of the truncated cone?
Good questions.
Can earth magnetic field account for the order of magnitude of results ? This I could help to address with rough estimates. The direction, axis and magnitude dependence on geometry, I have no precise idea right now and am unsure I could contribute. Thinking about it (part time).
I'm not too concerned with the order of magnitude at this point in time because the inverted torsional pendulum can amplify whatever effect is thrusting the device (maybe even dark matter :o). I would think that the main thing to do is to find a classical experimental artifact that also acts along the axis of the cone, that depends on orientation of the big base and that it is larger with increasing difference between the base diameters.....
Right now my bet would be something in the line of induced DC component interacting magnetically with either earth magnetic field ...
Interaction with the Earth's magnetic field is also first in my list of experimental artifacts.
Why would an interaction with the Earths' magnetic field be oriented along the cone axis and would favor a larger difference between the diameters of the bases of the truncated cone?
Good questions.
Can earth magnetic field account for the order of magnitude of results ? This I could help to address with rough estimates. The direction, axis and magnitude dependence on geometry, I have no precise idea right now and am unsure I could contribute. Thinking about it (part time).
There are no details in the literature as to the precise dimensions of the cavities used in the experiments, so that an example roughly similar to the overall dimension reported and with the proportions observed in the published photographs will be used. Assuming a wall of thickness 1 mm, and a copper mass density of 8.9×103 kg/m3, we have σ = 8.9kg/m2.
We further consider the copper cavity to have r1 = 18 cm, r2 = 36 cm, and θ0 = 22◦. For this cavity, the lowest TM mode corresponds to the order n = 5.75632 of the Legendre polynomial, with a resonant frequency ν = 1.05GHz. For a resistivity η = 1.72×10−8 Ωm the quality factor for this mode is Qcav = 3.13×104. The next two TM modes have the same order n = 5.75632, and resonant frequencies ν = 2.05GHz
11 and ν = 2.76GHz, with quality factors Qcav = 3.11 × 104 and Qcav = 5.24 × 104, respectively.
FWIW:
I converted the JPEG to a 8 bit gray TIF; imported into AutoCAD R14; scaled it so the big end was 28 cm. To an arbitrary level of accuracy, since these are old eyeballs.:
1st Flange to 2nd flange: 3.0214284 cm
2nd flange to Cylinder 16.59242861 cm
Cylinder: 13.5771431 cm
Diameter of big end: 28 cm
Diameter of cylinder: 17.2052288 cm
Nuts to you all.
"Still struggling to see how the momentum conservation would propagate to rest of cosmos in some "photon Unruh" generated perturbation, like pushing on the walls of its own universe or pushing on one's own acceleration. Surely this costs some energy, how can this energy be less than c*acquired_momentum or else borrowed from some potential, that is, communicated to the outside ?"
Mach's principle?
"Still struggling to see how the momentum conservation would propagate to rest of cosmos in some "photon Unruh" generated perturbation, like pushing on the walls of its own universe or pushing on one's own acceleration. Surely this costs some energy, how can this energy be less than c*acquired_momentum or else borrowed from some potential, that is, communicated to the outside ?"
Yes, I agree. As I have said, a HUGE "I Believe Button" was pressed on this assumption. I provided data to show how how conservation of momentum inside the unit doesn't amount to a conservation outside.
The unit still must experience a force from outside in order to move.
http://gr.physics.ncsu.edu/files/babson_ajp_77_826_09.pdf page 2
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.5264.pdf page 2
It isn't enough to just say that momentum was conserved and therefore it just moves, because it just does. That ignores hundreds of years of established science.
Another way to get at the length of the cavity is to look at the half wavelength multiples for resonance. But the wavelength is so short that it is not very helpful. Knowing the length and the wall taper (=.53) will give the small end diameter. I assume that the cone extends inside the cylinder some unknown distance.
lamda n 2d=n*Lamda d, m
0.12236 1 0.122364269 0.0612
0.12236 2 0.244728537 0.1224
0.12236 3 0.367092806 0.1835
0.12236 4 0.489457074 0.2447
0.12236 5 0.611821343 0.3059
0.12236 6 0.734185611 0.3671
0.12236 7 0.85654988 0.4283
I think we've had guesses for all of those values of n, except perhaps n=4. But maybe n = 3, as it does for Brady's device.
Well I've been busy as heck over the last few days getting ready for a board.
Well I've been busy as heck over the last few days getting ready for a board.
2x4? 2x6? 2x8?
C'mon man. Without numbers, this is just gibberish.
Yes, it would help if you can attach a file that people without AutoCad can open. I tried to open your dxf file with Mathematica and this is what I got:
...the wavelength is so short ...
Yes, it would help if you can attach a file that people without AutoCad can open. I tried to open your dxf file with Mathematica and this is what I got:
You want some cheese with your whine?
Nicely done!
Nicely done!
"That, and silence on important details. What the heck izzat geared gizmo, fo' zample? and how many ounces of CHBW are there in the copper can?"
On one hand "gravitational attraction" is a force (never mind explaining why it is a force) and reaction from jet exhaust is also a force (using circular arguments based on action and reaction).
The concept of force intuitive remains and since it was explained in elementary physics it is comforting, but Unruh radiation cannot lead to a force, well just because Unruh radiation is not familiar, unlike the already assimilated concepts of gravitational attraction (which drops apples on people's heads to wake them up) or a jet exhaust (which ejects water on people's faces from a water hose).
Every unexplained force that drops things on people's faces to wake them up and were discussed in elementary physics qualify as a force.
Forces that do not drop things on people faces and were not learnt in elementary physics must not be forces, well ... because they are just not familiar.
It is elementary Mr. Watson. If (and this is a big if that remains a long distance from being shown) the inertia of the cupric walls gets modified differentially fore and aft by Unruh radiation, in order for momentum to be conserved the cupric walls must be accelerated. Conservation of momentum is a paramount principle in Physics reigning supreme in all known Physics from General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:If Prof. M's theory is correct, then yes - In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) is modified as mi=m(1-L/4T)
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
Mr. Watson, these are the primordial assumptions that should be analyzed:If Prof. M's theory is correct, then yes - In MiHsC the inertial mass (mi) is modified as mi=m(1-L/4T)
1) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons?Quote
2) is it possible to modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation?
3) even if accelerations present in massive black holes could modify the inertia of photons due to Unruh radiation, is it possible for the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity to be modified?
4) what change in momentum could be responsible for modifying the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity? Is it the change in direction of photons hitting the walls? Or is the "acceleration" resulting from Energy-Mass equivalence of the photon, c^2/wavelength or c^2/(wavelength/2) an applicable concept for inertia modification?
5) if the inertia of photons in a microwave cavity could be modified fore and after in a microwave cavity, due to Unruh radiation, will conservation of momentum lead to a movement of the cupric walls or would it instead lead to a frequency shifting of the photons or to an expansion-compression movement of the photons inside the cupric walls without any rigid body movement of the cupric walls?
I'll try to extend my blind cat/hot stove analogy. But the photons approaching the cavity ends are not really blind even though they are moving with velocity c, what they see is the wall as it appeared some delta time earlier, the time required for the Unruh waves to travel from the wall to the photons current distance from the wall. I don't know that that pertains.
When the photons strike the wall they are absorbed and re-emitted with mi=m(1-L/4T), that is, a lower inertial mass. But they are photons so their velocity remains fixed at c. Therefore their energy and momentum is reduced. But Energy of a photon, E = hc/lamda and momentum = hf/c . The photons are no longer seeing the Unruh waves so normal physics must hold, the Energy mass of the photon must revert to hc/lamda but E is less than it was before it was reflected so lamda increases to conserve energy.
Now the photon travels to the other end of the cavity where the Unruh field is stronger so it is absorbed and re-emitted with less momentum with the momentum difference being greater than the momentum difference at the weak field end (the big end). Again the wavelength increases to conserve energy. The momentum differences are absorbed by the cavity ends but the bigger momentum difference pulls the whole cavity in that direction. Note that there would be a Doppler effect in this explanation. Problem - This does not seem to violate the 1/c condition.
Now, if you don't like that explanation, try this one.
The photon smashes into the wall is absorbed and re-emitted. But due to some unknown effect, the photon is re-emitted with more rotational momentum and less linear momentum. Momentum and energy are conserved but rotational momentum does not contribute to force. Now, why would momentum transfer from linear to rotational in the process of being absorbed and re-emitted? And would that result in a force?
Given what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
QuoteGiven what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
QuoteGiven what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
Most recently here: I posted about this a lot. Not getting through.QuoteGiven what I've recently learned about momentum wrt EM radiation, there isn't a way to get linear momentum in a closed system.
Could you explain that or give a reference?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1272847#msg1272847
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
I see that. Doesn't that tell us something?
Anyway - Its Saturday afternoon and I'm going to take a break from NSF.
The Shawyer chart reminds me of a Tracy-Widom distribution.
8, 12, 16
I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
Energy decay in a resonating cavity ~ Exp[ - omega * t / Q ] = Exp [ - t / τ]I have a question. Because these thruster cavities have very high Q don't they ring for a long time after the power is switched off? How long, because if the ringing is long enough shouldn't we see a tail off on the thrust trace shown in the various reports on the experiments?
What is the rule for diminishing stored power in the cavity once the power is switched off?
Of course if the thrust is due to Unruh waves, then thrust would stop instantly once the stored power dropped below a threshold.
Take a look at Shawyer's results.
There is thrust even after the power stops.
Time constant of a resonant EM wave decay for one dimensional cavity of length l : tau = Ql/c
Say Q=50000 l=.5m (give or take) -> 83µs
At 1.15ms after switch off, the energy is ringing at one millionth its initial value. I don't see this kind of millisecond temporal resolution in the charts so far. This is irrelevant.
There could be delay in the power off (DC or RF generator), there is certainly inertia in the mechanical balance, there could be delay in thermal effects. But as far as heavy mechanical balance time constants are concerned, photons switch off can be considered instantaneous until Q reaches at least 50000000
edit: or was it the half time rather than tau ? I have a doubt. Anyway, the above would stand correct by just replacing one millionth by around 1/700000 th
Well everyone agrees that inertia is rooted in distant interactions with cosmos. Some say some interactions, others say just gravity. I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?
Well everyone agrees that inertia is rooted in distant interactions with cosmos. Some say some interactions, others say just gravity. I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?
If by "rooted in distant interactions with cosmos" you mean some Machian principle, then I don't agree. Regardless of the role "Mach principle" have played for SR and GR genesis, this principle, in its various interpretations, is nonsense to me.
Is there a problem with inertia ? What is the problem with inertia ? Why would we need to implicate the whole cosmos when local phenomena can be explained in local fields on a small patch of curved spacetime with local coordinates in inertial frame ? Local vacuum can make a difference between inertial and non inertial trajectories (accelerated relative to free falling). There is no intrinsic local absolute 0 speed, but there is intrinsic local absolute 0 acceleration : does that make insurmountable theoretical problems, or fail at predicting some well proven experimental effects ? Does that have to be explained ?
I don't want to trigger a flow of scholarly answers here, just stating some astonishment.
.../...Energy decay in a resonating cavity ~ Exp[ - omega * t / Q ] = Exp [ - t / τ]
Time constant of a resonant EM wave decay for one dimensional cavity of length l : tau = Ql/c
Say Q=50000 l=.5m (give or take) -> 83µs
.../...
τ = Q/ omega = Q / (2 Pi f) = 50000 / (2 Pi 1.9 * 10 ^9 1/s) = 4 microseconds
τ is the time at which the amplitude is reduced to 1/e = 37% of its initial value.
.../...Energy decay in a resonating cavity ~ Exp[ - omega * t / Q ] = Exp [ - t / τ]
Time constant of a resonant EM wave decay for one dimensional cavity of length l : tau = Ql/c
Say Q=50000 l=.5m (give or take) -> 83µs
.../...
τ = Q/ omega = Q / (2 Pi f) = 50000 / (2 Pi 1.9 * 10 ^9 1/s) = 4 microseconds
τ is the time at which the amplitude is reduced to 1/e = 37% of its initial value.
mm, I thought Q could be interpreted roughly as the mean number of time a photon bounces back and forth before being absorbed. This is not far off for fundamental mode but would be quite different for much higher harmonics. Maybe this is just a matter of definition, your definition τ = Q/ omega makes perfect sense. I'm all confused. Can you help clarify because I suspect also some poor understanding of what resonance really is :
At fixed f, a 1d cavity with mirrors at both ends of fixed 99% reflectivity will ring for a proportionally longer time if it is longer in size, no ? So if tau is to be proportional to Q, that we both agree, this would mean that longer cavity would have better Q ? That won't appear in you formula. Perplexum.
.../...
For example, an object inside water has added inertia due to the water around it. And it is not due to viscosity.. It is due to the density of the fluid that the object is immersed in.
The inertia of an object immersed in water is greater than the inertia of an object in a vacuum. This is well known of course, and it affects the frequency of vibration of objects immersed in water. It is called "added mass" effect.
This added mass has nothing to do with distant interactions. It has nothing to do with distant water.
The added mass is a tensor (referred to as the induced mass tensor), it has components that depend on the direction of motion of the body. Some components of the added mass tensor have dimension of mass, but cross-components can have dimensions of mass × length and mass × length ^2.
Only for simple objects (like a sphere) one can easily compute the added mass.
For some other simple shapes, for example an airfoil inside water it is complicated. For a simple geometry one can use a Lagrangian to compute, for complicated geometries one has to do a numerical analysis.
.../...
For example, an object inside water has added inertia due to the water around it. And it is not due to viscosity.. It is due to the density of the fluid that the object is immersed in.
The inertia of an object immersed in water is greater than the inertia of an object in a vacuum. This is well known of course, and it affects the frequency of vibration of objects immersed in water. It is called "added mass" effect.
This added mass has nothing to do with distant interactions. It has nothing to do with distant water.
The added mass is a tensor (referred to as the induced mass tensor), it has components that depend on the direction of motion of the body. Some components of the added mass tensor have dimension of mass, but cross-components can have dimensions of mass × length and mass × length ^2.
Only for simple objects (like a sphere) one can easily compute the added mass.
For some other simple shapes, for example an airfoil inside water it is complicated. For a simple geometry one can use a Lagrangian to compute, for complicated geometries one has to do a numerical analysis.
Excellent analogy dr Rodal. So excellent we must be all the more careful in extrapolating from it.
Let's take superfluid helium to get rid of viscosity (superfluid helium comes cheap in thought experiments).
All right then, does the added mass tensor have something to say different when going on the same axis but on opposite directions ? If it is used to analyse vibrations I guess it is a linearised (or nth order ?) form that is correct only for small moves around, not for moves fast and big enough to generate turbulent flows. Correct ? So for instance, an horizontal plate would have a huge added mass in vertical direction and small in horizontal directions, but not a different mass whether it goes up or down. In this limit of small or slow movements, a cone of vertical axis would also see the same added mass, whether going up or down, in spite of its asymmetry. Correct ?
So in this formalism something can have a different "mass" depending on its position, but it can't have a different mass depending on it going to or leaving a position. The push heavy pull light analogy don't hold for slow moves. It can hold for fast moves but then I'm not sure this still makes sense to see the asymmetric resistance to changes of speed as changes of mass : basically it is a propeller and medium has to be modelled as a separate mass, not as an added mass to the propeller blades.
Or else, move medium boundary or gradient : lower position of sphere from air into liquid, lower liquid surface so that sphere is no longer immersed, raise sphere, raise liquid, start again. Push heavy, pull light. Ok, but that is quite a work to do (energy to give) in the moving medium, compared to what can be harnessed by the sphere.
For me this is not a problem of how a property like mass can depend on position, but how it can depend on velocity (back and forth) unless the "field" that changes the property is itself dynamic (at great energetic cost).
And resonance is not a magic answer to "recycle" the dynamic of "mass altering" field : say we have a bucket of water excited at resonant frequency, fundamental mode. At the centre of the bucket, the surface of water goes up and down periodically. A sphere is put at such height as to be periodically immersed and emerged(?), slightly raised when out of water, slightly lowered when in water. This can be interesting for the sphere to push heavy and pull light, but someone has to pay the power bill, resonance or not.
And by the way, that formula also reminds me, did you allow formulas of the type
Sqrt[ (1/w)^2 + (1/d)^2 ]
in your program?
If not, you should in the next iteration...[/b]
Well everyone agrees that inertia is rooted in distant interactions with cosmos. Some say some interactions, others say just gravity. I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?
If by "rooted in distant interactions with cosmos" you mean some Machian principle, then I don't agree. Regardless of the role "Mach principle" have played for SR and GR genesis, this principle, in its various interpretations, is nonsense to me.
Is there a problem with inertia ? What is the problem with inertia ? Why would we need to implicate the whole cosmos when local phenomena can be explained in local fields on a small patch of curved spacetime with local coordinates in inertial frame ? Local vacuum can make a difference between inertial and non inertial trajectories (accelerated relative to free falling). There is no intrinsic local absolute 0 speed, but there is intrinsic local absolute 0 acceleration : does that make insurmountable theoretical problems, or fail at predicting some well proven experimental effects ? Does that have to be explained ?
I don't want to trigger a flow of scholarly answers here, just stating some astonishment.
8, 12, 16
You give them the material before the test and they still get the answer wrong.MassMESS # 1 illustrated first.MassMESS #2 Illustrated second.
Well, tanks (instead of thanks) for fix'n that sideways picture
I don't want to trigger a flow of scholarly answers here, just stating some astonishment.
There is no intrinsic local absolute 0 speed, but there is intrinsic local absolute 0 acceleration ...
Very well stated. But what if inertia can be explained by a local field that goes to some extent beyond the cavity and depends on the cavity shape?
So in this formalism something can have a different "mass" depending on its position, but it can't have a different mass depending on it going to or leaving a position. The push heavy pull light analogy don't hold for slow moves. It can hold for fast moves but then I'm not sure this still makes sense to see the asymmetric resistance to changes of speed as changes of mass : basically it is a propeller and medium has to be modelled as a separate mass, not as an added mass to the propeller blades.
You say potato I say potato,So in this formalism something can have a different "mass" depending on its position, but it can't have a different mass depending on it going to or leaving a position. The push heavy pull light analogy don't hold for slow moves. It can hold for fast moves but then I'm not sure this still makes sense to see the asymmetric resistance to changes of speed as changes of mass : basically it is a propeller and medium has to be modelled as a separate mass, not as an added mass to the propeller blades.
Back to the ether, I see.SometimesI just flat out don't get it
Well everyone agrees that inertia is rooted in distant interactions with cosmos. Some say some interactions, others say just gravity. I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?
If by "rooted in distant interactions with cosmos" you mean some Machian principle, then I don't agree. Regardless of the role "Mach principle" have played for SR and GR genesis, this principle, in its various interpretations, is nonsense to me.
... I don't want to trigger a flow of scholarly answers here, just stating some astonishment.
Yep I'm on board with you. That's why I said, "I say all, near and far. Why play favorites?"
I am disagreeing with "everybody" and all that Machian business regarding distant interactions. It is clear that inertia is dependent on all interactions at all distances, near and far.
Mach simply wasn't as informed about the universe as we are now. We have the benefit of new data.
I've been trying for weeks to put this business of photons experiencing Unruh radiation business to bed. ...
The other thing I've been trying to drive home is that the momentum of a photon in an EM field ... doesn't just slam into things and impart linear momentum. ... angular momentum is all you get to play with in a closed system.
The final thing I've been trying to drive home is that ... there is no way to extract linear momentum. ...
The devil is in the details, and you can't push the I believe button ever, not even once.
Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074
Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074
Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).
A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?
Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?
Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?
Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?
Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?
And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?
Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074
Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).
A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?
Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?
Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?
Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?
Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?
And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?
Well the theory has to fit the experiment. They clearly said the dielectric was important. It isn't magic. Someone has to figure it out.
Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074
Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).
A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?
Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?
Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?
Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?
Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?
And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?
Well the theory has to fit the experiment. They clearly said the dielectric was important. It isn't magic. Someone has to figure it out.
So, rather than examine the experimental numerical data of all the tests in the USA, UK and China, the emphasis should be on a statement on a several-pages long report?
And that little statement -all words, no numerical data- should be interpreted as telling us that Polyethylene (the plastic used for garbage bags) being the key to the Magic Kingdom?
(But for the Cannae device it is Teflon, and for Shawyer now -according to wembley - is nothing -no dielectric)
HI all,
I 've been revisiting my estimate for the dimensions of the Brady cavity and have been having second thoughts. Would a few of you take a look at the photograph and make an estimate of the dimensions. There isn't much to use as a scale but maybe you can find something. I used the cross section of the support and called it 1.5 inches but parallax interferes. I read from the report that the chamber is 36 x 30 inches, and an outside photo of it shows it to be 36 inches long and 30 inches wide. That is, longer than it is wide. Maybe that information could make a better scaling. Anyway, we need more eyes on this than just mine.
aero
P.S. Are there any photos of the device other than Figure 7 and Figure 15 of the report?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum (https://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum)
Please forgive an idle speculation on a Sunday evening from the peanut gallery.
Whilst I have been enjoying the impressive display of skill by the math samurai I have a question I have not seen sliced and diced yet. If the local model of inertia is preferred, could those that propose it please explain to this ignoramus how the gravinertial effects of the universe is switched off? I am not aware of any distance limit proposed by GR or quantum mechanics. Sure for any field the inverse square law seems to apply, but there is no limit beyond which the effect is zero. c limits the timing of a reaction to an action, but it does not eliminate the reaction.
Genuine question, because the local inertia model has to explain how the cosmos is switched off if it is to be taken seriously.
Edited to correct typo
1) As to Prof. McCulloch's theory I propose that you direct the question to him directly. You can find his contact info in the UK here: https://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382
2) As stated by John von Neumann, the business of science is to make mathematical models. These mathematical models are expected to predict physical effects. The mathematical theory rises and falls based on its success or failure to make those mathematical predictions. The emphasis should be on mathematical description of the experiments first, and predictions as the next step.
3) What is inside the cupric hollow EM Drive cavities when they operate ? The answer is clear: photons at microwave frequencies. Photons are both particle and wave and describable by Quantum Mechanics. They are not Classical Mechanics particles. Still conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and other principles apply to this EM Drive. It is not clear at all that gravity should pertain to this physical effect. To this date we use Quantum Mechanics as the most successful theory ever in mathematically predicting nature, yet, its interpretation is still as fraught with difficulties as it was 100 years ago. Engineers and Scientists calculate and are very happy with the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics, without worrying about issues that philosophers worry about like "Many Worlds Interpretations" etc etc.
The questions are:
A) are the measured thrust forces an experimental artifact or a genuine thrust force?
B) if the measured thrust force is not an experimental artifact, is it just causing a rotation of the drive around its center of mass or is it producing a linear acceleration of the center of mass?
Please forgive an idle speculation on a Sunday evening from the peanut gallery.
Whilst I have been enjoying the impressive display of skill by the math samurai I have a question I have not seen sliced and diced yet. If the local model of inertia is preferred, could those that propose it please explain to this ignoramus how the gravinertial effects of the universe is switched off? I am not aware of any distance limit proposed by GR or quantum mechanics. Sure for any field the inverse square law seems to apply, but there is no limit beyond which the effect is zero. c limits the timing of a reaction to an action, but it does not eliminate the reaction.
Genuine question, because the local inertia model has to explain how the cosmos is switched off if it is to be taken seriously.
Edited to correct typo
We know that the electric field inside the cavity is confined to the cavity as in a Faraday cage. Any slowly varying component to the magnetic field can escape the cavity. Gravity acts inside the cavity just as it does outside the cavity, the cavity walls do not provide any shielding against gravity but it is not clear why gravity should play a role on the behavior of the microwave photons inside the cavity.Quote3) What is inside the cupric hollow EM Drive cavities when they operate ? The answer is clear: photons at microwave frequencies. Photons are both particle and wave and describable by Quantum Mechanics. They are not Classical Mechanics particles. Still conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and other principles apply to this EM Drive. It is not clear at all that gravity should pertain to this physical effect. To this date we use Quantum Mechanics as the most successful theory ever in mathematically predicting nature, yet, its interpretation is still as fraught with difficulties as it was 100 years ago. Engineers and Scientists calculate and are very happy with the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics, without worrying about issues that philosophers worry about like "Many Worlds Interpretations" etc etc.
Are you proposing that the inside of the device is isolated from the universe? If so how. Please don't bother to answer if you find the question trivial, I won't be offended and I do not want to distract you. Silence is a powerful message : )
...
I am confused.
What is the thrust per watt of photon energy for an ideal photon rocket?
Is it energy mass of all the photons times c?
I am confused.the thrust of a photon rocket is
What is the thrust per watt of photon energy for an ideal photon rocket?
Is it energy mass of all the photons times c?
I am confused.
What is the thrust per watt of photon energy for an ideal photon rocket?
Is it energy mass of all the photons times c?
For a photon rocket thrust(Newtons)/power(Watts) is 1/c. That is a best case for a perfectly collimated beam : diffraction limit can slightly lower that upper bound (that is if the size of emitter is not many times greater than wavelength), and practical aspects obviously can only limit more this theoretical bound, limited efficiency in energy to photon conversion for instance.
Since thrust (force) is kg m/s impulses per second and Watts is Joules per second, the same ratio is correct as per
momentum(kg m/s)/energy(Joules) = 1/c
That is exactly the definition of momentum for a photon : p = E/c. This is from there that thrust/power=1/c is derived. Note that frequency (and reciprocally wavelength) don't play any role in that. Beaming perfectly collimated photons with perfect efficiency gives same thrust for a given power, whether this power is used to generate a lot of low momentum microwave photons per second, or a few gamma rays photons of high momentum per second.
Specific Thrust = Thrust per total photon energy = F /( N * h * f)= 1 / c = 3.336 * 10 ^ (-9) s/m
Yes you may. I fix't, it reads now "Thrust per total photon power." Thks from me.
Specific Thrust = Thrust per total photon energy = F /( N * h * f)= 1 / c = 3.336 * 10 ^ (-9) s/m
If I may : this mixing of energy and power is confusing. <<N is the photon number flux (photon number per unit time)>> and F is the "momentum flux" number of momenta (of a photon) per second. Formula is correct but describing the power (energy flux) as "total energy" is misleading.
Attention to new blog page by Prof. McCulloch with a revised chart based on wavelengths and analogies to the reason for a force on the EM Drive:Well that certainly is physics from the edge. Godspeed.
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/emdrive-mihsc-dream-of-horizon-physics.html
Still toying with numbers. I divided the COP I posted previously by Q and got this:
Experiment COP COP/Q
"Shawyer (2008) a" 5,643 0.96
"Shawyer (2008) b" 64,156 1.43
"Juan (2012) TE011" 64,156 2.00
"Juan (2012) TE012" 94,435 1.89
"Brady et al. (2014) a" 1,618 0.22
"Brady et al. (2014) b" 899 0.05
"Brady et al. (2014) c" 6,388 0.29
I don't know that it has any meaning but now at least the number values are near the ideal photon rocket thrust. That is, the thrust of an ideal photon rocket using the stored energy of the cavity/second comes close to the experimentally derived thrusts.
Couple things:
Won't get back to the lab til monday for measurements from picture
Both end plates have something else going on. Looks likr the top one has a tuning plate(?) of some kind, not motorized
Why the extra plate below the bottom, can't see in pic
Found another paper that was bothering me in the piles behind the desk
"Ionization instabilities and resonant acoustic modes", Physics of Plasmas, V8, N0.11, p.5018
It was concerned w/ the coupling of ions w/ dust particles. Reminds me of RF w/ axions (Ya, I'm still chasing the axion connection) no cavities involved, but "It is found that an unstable dust-acoustic mode of nonzero real frequency can be generated via a resonance phenomenon." ... "As the charge on dust particles exceeds a threshold, multiple low-frequency modes with large growth rates are excited suddenly."
I just had to throw that in cuz I finally found the d**m thing ! (You youngsters can play w/ it for now)
Ok, so in practical terms it means you can (theoretically)induce feedback into the coupling constant if you can set up the dispersion relations properly.
OK - I took out all possible sources of loss and inefficiency by simply replacing the actual measured trust with Prof. M's new formula predicted values.
Formula thrust
Experiment COP COP/Q COP/Q
"Shawyer (2008) a" 5,643 0.96 0.44
"Shawyer (2008) b" 64,156 1.43 0.82
"Juan (2012) TE011" 64,156 2.00 0.82
"Juan (2012) TE012" 94,435 1.89 0.82
"Brady et al. (2014) a" 1,618 0.22 0.46
"Brady et al. (2014) b" 899 0.05 0.46
"Brady et al. (2014) c" 6,388 0.29 0.46
Now the values are all geometry because Q is multiplied the formula and divided out. The values though are getting into the range of what a COP based on an ideal photon rocket should be. I could factor cosine losses into the thrust formula but that's a lot of trouble for little benefit.
This formula says to me that what is wanted is a big cavity with the ratio (w_big/w_small) large, and height/length, (s) large. Height/length, (s) large is the new factor in Prof. M's latest formula and s is the variable name he uses.
It seems that current tech could deal with that but of course the larger the cavity is, the heavier it is so the T/W ratio suffers at some point.
Still toying with numbers. I divided the COP I posted previously by Q and got this:
Experiment COP COP/Q
"Shawyer (2008) a" 5,643 0.96
"Shawyer (2008) b" 64,156 1.43
"Juan (2012) TE011" 64,156 2.00
"Juan (2012) TE012" 94,435 1.89
"Brady et al. (2014) a" 1,618 0.22
"Brady et al. (2014) b" 899 0.05
"Brady et al. (2014) c" 6,388 0.29
I don't know that it has any meaning but now at least the number values are near the ideal photon rocket thrust. That is, the thrust of an ideal photon rocket using the stored energy of the cavity/second comes close to the experimentally derived thrusts.
Please forgive an idle speculation on a Sunday evening from the peanut gallery.Quote
Thanks. I was really gettin' kinda full, all by myself in that there gallery.
we must seriously address the question of the role of resonance and Q in a cavityIndeed!
OK - I took out all possible sources of loss and inefficiency by simply replacing the actual measured trust with Prof. M's new formula predicted values.
Formula thrust
Experiment COP COP/Q COP/Q
"Shawyer (2008) a" 5,643 0.96 0.44
"Shawyer (2008) b" 64,156 1.43 0.82
"Juan (2012) TE011" 64,156 2.00 0.82
"Juan (2012) TE012" 94,435 1.89 0.82
"Brady et al. (2014) a" 1,618 0.22 0.46
"Brady et al. (2014) b" 899 0.05 0.46
"Brady et al. (2014) c" 6,388 0.29 0.46
Now the values are all geometry because Q is multiplied the formula and divided out. The values though are getting into the range of what a COP based on an ideal photon rocket should be. I could factor cosine losses into the thrust formula but that's a lot of trouble for little benefit.
This formula says to me that what is wanted is a big cavity with the ratio (w_big/w_small) large, and height/length, (s) large. Height/length, (s) large is the new factor in Prof. M's latest formula and s is the variable name he uses.
It seems that current tech could deal with that but of course the larger the cavity is, the heavier it is so the T/W ratio suffers at some point.
Very interesting. On this topic, have people commented on this paper
Photonic Laser Propulsion (PLP): Photon Propulsion Using an Active Resonant Optical Cavity ?
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2007-6131
He claims to have measured 35 microNewtons thrust at 1.7 watts with propellant less photon rocket amplification in an optical cavity
This is a much higher thrust/power input than normal photon rockets and even superior to NASA Eagleworks truncated cone experiments
Taking into account the frequency drift and bandwidth issues that the researchers have tuning the device under resonance, with concomitant drift in Q (which therefore cannot be a constant during the measurements) these results are quite interesting!More on that later please, as relation of resonance with Q not clear to me (higher Q => narrower bandwidth not the point, that's perfectly clear). Needs time to think of a clear enough way to express what's not clear, that's difficult.
Perhaps we need some more frobnicating , including re-running the formulas with the updated geometry (see http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/emdrive-mihsc-dream-of-horizon-physics.html) and allowing for Sqrt[ 1/big^2 + 1/L^2] and perhaps all the other square roots as well. Also using the new formulas taking into account wavelength: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1272925#msg1272925
Also frobnicating with the photon rocket analogy...
#define Nrec 7
t_data data_in[Nrec] =
{
// w_big w_small lambda Q power force
{"Shawyer (2008) a", 1.0 , 16 , 8 , C/2.45 , 5900 , 850 , 16 },
{"Shawyer (2008) b", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 45000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE011", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.5 , 32000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE012", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 50000 , 1000 , 315 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) a", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.933 , 7320 , 16.9 , 0.0912 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) b", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.937 , 18100 , 16.7 , 0.0501 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) c", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.88 , 22000 , 2.6 , 0.0554 },
};
I have my sheets of copper and a dismantled microwave oven at the ready!All kidding aside, it is important that the inner cavity walls made out of a shiny highly conductive material like copper, in order to minimize losses and maximize Q. The inner surface should be smooth copper like a mirror.
Very interesting. On this topic, have people commented on this paper
Photonic Laser Propulsion (PLP): Photon Propulsion Using an Active Resonant Optical Cavity ?
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2007-6131
He claims to have measured 35 microNewtons thrust at 1.7 watts with propellant less photon rocket amplification in an optical cavity
This is a much higher thrust/power input than normal photon rockets and even superior to NASA Eagleworks truncated cone experiments
Does anyone have access to this full paper?
From the abstract, It looks like his resonant cavity has a Q of 3000. At 35 muN thrust, 1.7 watts, and frobnicat's simplified rule of thumb, F/P = 1/c * Q predicts F = 17. muN . Only missing a factor of 2.
I'd say that's close enough to add a constant factor of 2 as a possible choice in your formula search. Have we exceeded a million equation search yet?
Have we exceeded a million equation search yet?
Have we exceeded a million equation search yet?
No but 21769 is already quite a lot. The data set is sparse and with some uncertainties : the risk is overfitting. Scanning on more than 15 bits (32768 combinations) worth of explanation could easily bring up more perfect formula for the specific available data but with less generalisation power : worse at predicting next data points to come. Need more data points before it's worth looking at much more formulas. Not a problem of computing power, not before reaching many billions of formulas.
At this stage with 7 data points, from a "phenomenological theoretically agnostic" point of view, simpler is better, and there is not that much simple equations.
Note : the number of combinations of exponents and added terms were 94 millions but of those only 21769 unique representations (discarding equivalents) made sense in dimensional analysis (kg m s).
The cat is ok btw.
Just slightly singed.
Taking into account the frequency drift and bandwidth issues that the researchers have tuning the device under resonance, with concomitant drift in Q (which therefore cannot be a constant during the measurements) these results are quite interesting!More on that later please, as relation of resonance with Q not clear to me (higher Q => narrower bandwidth not the point, that's perfectly clear). Needs time to think of a clear enough way to express what's not clear, that's difficult.
I don't know what is an inch or a foot.
1) Both inner surface ends of the truncated cone must have been made out of copper. Otherwise the cavity would not have the correct boundary conditions to be a resonant cavity: it would be a waveguide. One wouldn't be able to have high Q and resonance if the inner surface of the ends wouldn't be copper.
2) The inner surface of the copper must have been pretty well polished, in order to get Q~50 000, given the calculated skin depths
3) There cannot be any significant irregularities on the inside surface of the truncated cone.
The cat is ok btw.
Just slightly singed.
Ok, that's good. Basically anything sensible we come up with can be computed then for this small data set.
Yes. I looked at some articles on PSP, its just another way of doing beamed propulsion. Since the photons within the resonance cavity (between the mirrors) actually are pushing, all of them count to give thrust. In the EM drive case, it seems that all of the photons are counting to give thrust but they are not leaving the cavity of the engine. I guess that is the trick and the problem. How can the momentum of the photons in the cavity be separated from the photons themselves? Momentum departs, photons remain.
Ok I'm aware that I'm the stick in the mud here, but not by virtue of being intentionally obtuse here. I believe I have things in the right perspective. Let me state this another way:
Now you can dump rf energy into a cavity all day long, and that rf cavity is going to eventually absorb (as a function of Q) and re-radiate that energy right back to the universe in which it resides. Given the cavity has a big end and a small end, you have more surface area on the big end in which to radiate heat, giving the illusion of thrust by new science. This isn't new science. I don't need a page long series of equations to characterize this. It is just thermodynamics.
Also it is well known that if an electric current flows through anything, wires, cavity walls, whatever... the result is a perpendicular magnetic field around the conductor. Now pulse that current, you get a pulsating magnetic field.
The NASA test campaign is very telling compared to the other tests, because the NASA tests were low power tests. This allowed them to effectively separate out artifact modes of thrust from the dominant mode of thrust. They concluded, all things considered that the dielectric was important to measured thrust.
If you dump hundreds watts into an empty sealed test article, yep, you're gonna measure some thrust. The thrust you get doesn't need new science to explain.
One can try to get famous by writing page long formulas to explain the obvious, but there is no need.
Empty cavities providing thrust isn't anomalous thrust.
Cavities with dielectric present providing thrust is anomalous thrust. And when you remove the dielectric, the thrust goes away.......that is anomalous.
Have we exceeded a million equation search yet?
No but 21769 is already quite a lot. The data set is sparse and with some uncertainties : the risk is overfitting. Scanning on more than 15 bits (32768 combinations) worth of explanation could easily bring up more perfect formula for the specific available data but with less generalisation power : worse at predicting next data points to come. Need more data points before it's worth looking at much more formulas. Not a problem of computing power, not before reaching many billions of formulas.
At this stage with 7 data points, from a "phenomenological theoretically agnostic" point of view, simpler is better, and there is not that much simple equations.
Note : the number of combinations of exponents and added terms were 94 millions but of those only 21769 unique representations (discarding equivalents) made sense in dimensional analysis (kg m s).
Not quite there yet. The theoretical geometrical variable for a resonant cavity box is Sqrt[a^-2+L^-2] and we didn't have square roots of additions allowed, is that right?
Moreover we had a number of formulas very close: [a^-2+L^-2] and [a^-1+L^-1]
So the data was telling us we need to allow Sqrt[a^-2+L^-2]
We had these square roots but they are missing the plus sign:
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 sqrt(a^-2 L^-2)^-1 1.02 0.58
a^-1 b^-2 L^2 Q^1 P^1 F^-1 c^-1 sqrt(a^-1 L^-1)^-1 1.32 0.58
6 entries
Thresholds : mean=2.00 stddev=1.35
a b L Q P F c mean stddev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
a b L Q P F c exterm mean stddev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
a^2 b^-2 L^-2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^-2 + b^-2)^-1 1.42 1.34
a^0 b^0 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^-2 + b^-2)^1 1.76 0.93
a^2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^ 2 + b^ 2)^-1 1.42 0.68
a^0 b^-2 L^0 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 1.31 0.77 *
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^-2 + L^-2)^-1 0.09 1.00 *
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^ 2 + L^ 2)^1 1.87 0.84 *
a^2 b^-2 L^-2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (b^-2 + L^-2)^-1 1.23 1.21
a^0 b^0 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (b^-2 + L^-2)^1 1.95 1.06
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (b^ 2 + L^ 2)^1 0.72 1.35
a^2 b^2 L^-2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |a^-2 - b^-2|^1 1.34 1.25
a^0 b^0 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |a^-2 - b^-2|^1 1.34 0.60
a^2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |a^ 2 - b^ 2|^-1 1.84 1.02
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |a^-2 - L^-2|^-1 0.79 1.22
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |a^ 2 - L^ 2|^1 1.16 0.79
a^2 b^2 L^-2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^-2 - L^-2|^1 0.66 0.62
a^2 b^0 L^0 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^-2 - L^-2|^1 1.88 0.88
a^0 b^2 L^0 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^-2 - L^-2|^1 -0.57 0.83
a^0 b^0 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^-2 - L^-2|^1 0.65 0.51
a^-2 b^2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^-2 - L^-2|^1 -1.79 1.19
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 |b^ 2 - L^ 2|^1 -0.57 0.43
a^0 b^-2 L^0 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 sqrt(a^-2 b^-2)^-1 1.59 1.13
a^-2 b^-2 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 sqrt(a^-2 L^-2)^-1 0.98 0.91
a^0 b^-2 L^0 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 sqrt(b^-2 L^-2)^-1 0.98 1.26
a^2 b^0 L^2 Q^2 P^2 F^-2 c^-2 (a^-2 * b^-2)^1 1.59 0.80
Checked : 1581201
Validated : 972
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
...
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
Woah:
On page 7 of that PDF, they've already got a design for an all electric SSTO! They can't put that in a paper and post it on the intertubes unless it was true!
I didn't read any further, so I may have missed the fine print regarding ticket prices and carry on baggage.
Hey! Mucho thankso for the Hendrix clip!
Do you do yoga? After a weekend of log splitting, I'm looking forward to Hillary's class this PM at 5:30, Downtown. See ya there?
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
...
Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)
Sheeez
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
...
Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)
Sheeez
Where is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?
Is the drawing shown next to puny Cannae 1 mN/KW symmetric and with dielectric?
Is the drawing shown next to mighty superconducting Cannae 1000 mN/KW unsymmetric and with no dielectric?
The language of engineers and scientists is drawings, spreadsheets, plots, numbers and formulas instead of words.
Well, for that we have wembley's information regarding no dielectric. So there :)Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
...
Shawyer is now claiming with no no dielectric 952 mN/KW, compared to Cannae with dielectric 1.7 mN/KW (600 times less)
Sheeez
Where is it said the Superconducting Cannae isn't using dielectric?
Is the drawing shown next to puny Cannae 1 mN/KW symmetric and with dielectric?
Is the drawing shown next to mighty superconducting Cannae 1000 mN/KW unsymmetric and with no dielectric?
The language of engineers and scientists is drawings, spreadsheets, plots, numbers and formulas instead of words.
Those drawings aren't one for one with the table to the right. sheesh.
PS: please take a look at my message on the AutoCAD drawing
....Well, sheeesh
I can't convert it to something else. It is a 3d drawing anyway. Find a free autocad viewer. The inside dimensions of the cavity are known to me, but not usable to me because of the lack of depth perception in the photo.
Can you at least post:
Large Diameter=?
Small Diameter=6.25 inches
Length=?
how much work is that instead of all that stuff about polyethylene having magic properties :)
How would you like it if I would post that I computed that polyethylene has magic thrusting capability with a Mathematica version 10.1 file that you cannot read? :)
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.7115?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Physics+Today&utm_campaign=4848808_Physics+Today%3a+The+week+in+Physics+13-17+October&dm_i=1Y69,2VXD4,E1MTSN,AG4QR,1
Just an odd analogy that just popped up. Note the motion to the right of the resonating "Hawking Black Hole"
Ok, instead of Sheeshing around I will post the Mulletronized dimensions in a language that we can understand (and more noticeable than muted colors on a black background, sheesh :)):
Brady et. al. truncated cone, frustum, dimensions
Length = 0.27635 m
Large Diameter = 0.30523 m
Small Diameter = 0.15875
compared to the dimensions now in McCulloch's chart:
Length = 0.345 m (25% longer)
Large Diameter = 0.28 (8% smaller)
Small Diameter = 0.17 0.15875 (7% larger)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=615993;image)
1) Does Shawyer explain Conservation of Energy as due to unequal Doppler shift in the forward and aft directions ? (See below)Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
I mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?
Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?
It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.
I mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?
Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?
It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.
Shawyer points out that the main losses are due to "extraction of kinetic energy, which lower the loaded Q" he thus differentiates between a loaded Q and an unloaded Q, due to conservation of energy:
"The Q of any resonant circuit can be defined as the stored energy divided by the energy loss per cycle. Thus as soon as kinetic energy is extracted from the engine, the stored energy, and hence the Q, falls."
See: http://emdrive.com/firstgenapplications.html
I mentioned cosine losses earlier. I wonder, would the RF waves in a small piece of the cavity parallel to the side wall of the cavity produce thrust in the axial direction like delta thrust = delta force * cos(cone half-angle)?
Question: Would the taper, or cone half angle result in cosine losses from the forces generated by the EM thruster? If so, what would be the relative magnitude of such cosine losses?
It is a little bit important because the experimentally measured thrust would necessarily include the cosine loss while our force models do not. But it should be an easy fix to the math models.
Shawyer points out that the main losses are due to "extraction of kinetic energy, which lower the loaded Q" he thus differentiates between a loaded Q and an unloaded Q, due to conservation of energy:
"The Q of any resonant circuit can be defined as the stored energy divided by the energy loss per cycle. Thus as soon as kinetic energy is extracted from the engine, the stored energy, and hence the Q, falls."
See: http://emdrive.com/firstgenapplications.html
You quoted me but didn't address my question. Sure there are other losses but cosine loss is the reduction of the thrust component in the axial direction, (direction of acceleration) due to the rocket engine being pointed at an angle to the axial direction. In this case of course the whole EM thruster is pointed in the axial direction but the nozzle with flat ends is not shaped to redirect the off axis forces in the axial direction. Maybe a drawing will help.
@RodalAs a direct answer to the statement "cosine loss is the reduction of the thrust component in the axial direction, (direction of acceleration) due to the rocket engine being pointed at an angle to the axial direction", I cannot understand these EM Drives as a thrusting rocket producing vectors of force, therefore I cannot use the analogy to validate a cosine loss.
I think we are talking past each other. Look at my drawing - if that doesn't communicate let me know what it does say to you.
@RodalAs a direct answer to the statement "cosine loss is the reduction of the thrust component in the axial direction, (direction of acceleration) due to the rocket engine being pointed at an angle to the axial direction", I cannot understand these EM Drives as a thrusting rocket, therefore I cannot use the analogy to validate a cosine loss.
I think we are talking past each other. Look at my drawing - if that doesn't communicate let me know what it does say to you.
From classical (Maxwell's equations) electromagnetic microwave cavity theory I am closer to Frobnicat regarding electromagnetic tensor causing presure on the cavity surfaces that cancel out (no net thrust to accelerate the center of mass of the EM Drive).
Doesn't that show the use of less than the ultimate care is construction of the cavity?No it is not related to care in physical construction of the cavity. It just shows that they did not conduct a computational convergence study of their Finite Element analysis investigating finer and finer meshes as well as other types of Finite Elements (with higher order interpolation polynomials) until achieving convergence. This could be due to lack of time and urgency for the project to complete in a specified amount of time and not having the time to conduct a convergence study of their Finite Element results. It could also be due to project priorities: perhaps they prioritized the experimental measurements over the computational analysis. To Brady's credit they conducted a Finite Element analysis and they properly identified the mode shapes involved. They deserve kudos for that. I have not seen the mode shapes identified for the experiments conducted in other countries. I very much appreciate that Brady et.al. conducted the Finite Element analysis and reported the mode shapes.
In other words they built the cavity first then tried to figure out how to excite it.
What good does it do to try and sell an electric SSTO space plane and interstellar probes, when they haven't even put together a tabletop demonstration whose effect is visible without high sensitivity instrumentation?The *good* it does is to point out how game changing a positive result would be.
What good does it do to try and sell an electric SSTO space plane and interstellar probes, when they haven't even put together a tabletop demonstration whose effect is visible without high sensitivity instrumentation?
Terminal velocity = 204,429 km/s = 0.68 c
Even if you can get to 68% of the speed of light, how do you slow down at that point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upt7ZTvcriY
This is something where JohnFornaro and AutoCAD could really help ...
What good does it do to try and sell an electric SSTO space plane and interstellar probes, when they haven't even put together a tabletop demonstration whose effect is visible without high sensitivity instrumentation?The *good* it does is to point out how game changing a positive result would be.
Hence a bit more funding. Hence we can get a bit closer to the *truth*
This is something where JohnFornaro and AutoCAD could really help ...
I just plopped
"AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.jpg"
into ACAD, and arbitrarily scaled it. Nobody's given me a wide end dimension, so, for the purposes of discussion, I just scaled it to your *cough* typical EM-Drive diameter *cough* of 28 cm.
Interesting similarities in the proportions.
Got any more where that came from?
The smell of the sizzle is often good enough to want a burger though...What good does it do to try and sell an electric SSTO space plane and interstellar probes, when they haven't even put together a tabletop demonstration whose effect is visible without high sensitivity instrumentation?The *good* it does is to point out how game changing a positive result would be.
Hence a bit more funding. Hence we can get a bit closer to the *truth*
Unfortunately, however, they are selling sizzle before they have a steak.
This is something where JohnFornaro and AutoCAD could really help ...
I just plopped
"AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.jpg"
into ACAD, and arbitrarily scaled it. Nobody's given me a wide end dimension, so, for the purposes of discussion, I just scaled it to your *cough* typical EM-Drive diameter *cough* of 28 cm.
Interesting similarities in the proportions.
Got any more where that came from?
Thank you!
Very professional job. We even got pdf's for everybody to look at!
And everything in metric units as well !
Now, would it be too much to ask to also get cheese with the excellent wine?
We know that the (Faztek) beam (at the bottom of the picture, shown in cross-section) has a square cross section of 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch
Knowing that, what are the dimensions?
Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles.
Bitch and moan. All I ever hear around here.
Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.
Not like I can't draw or design or anything.
Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles.
But we know from the documentation that the "small" Shawyer device big end was 16 cm diameter.
Not like I can't draw or design or anything.
Did you assume, note from citation, or measure the extruded T-slot aluminum to be standard 1.5" (3.81cm) bars?
We know that the (Faztek) beam (at the bottom of the picture, shown in cross-section) has a square cross section of 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch...
::Tiptoes quietly away::
Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.
That software don't do poop. Fornaro Inside!
Every last dimension is eyeballed. I could go to great lengths to geometrically correct for parallax, but without a multiple equational frobnicatory analysis of possible frequencies and resonance, 'twould be a major wast of my time.
There are commonalities in the proportions. I point out that there is no 45 degree cone.
Not like I can't draw or design or anything.
Did you assume, note from citation, or measure the extruded T-slot aluminum to be standard 1.5" (3.81cm) bars?
Found this. Hope the dratted link works:
....
Other stuff at ADS (Astrophysical Data System) that might be relevant here. Search term I used was 'Photonic Laser Propulsion.'
(time flies)
This dimension was given to us by Paul March (a member of Dr. White's team) more than a 100 pages along (time flies)
http://www.grainger.com/product/FAZTEK-Framing-Extrusion-5JA96?s_pp=false&picUrl=//static.grainger.com/rp/s/is/image/Grainger/5JA94_AS01?Here's the "small" shawyer device. Correct my titles..... Other than that, I really like the way your software presents results.
That software don't do poop. Fornaro Inside!
Every last dimension is eyeballed. I could go to great lengths to geometrically correct for parallax, but without a multiple equational frobnicatory analysis of possible frequencies and resonance, 'twould be a major wast of my time.
There are commonalities in the proportions. I point out that there is no 45 degree cone.
It is a really outstanding job.
Based on the last drawing, that has the dimensions for the Big Diameter based on the 1.5"x1.5" cross section, given to us by Paul March,
I compute the following based on scaling of Fornaro's drawing:
Brady et.al.
Length = 0.33245 m
BigDiameter = 0.39697 m
SmallDiameter = 0.24393 m
The ratios (Length to Big Diameter, and Length to Small Diameter) are pretty close to aero:
L/BigDiameter L/SmallDiameter ( L/SmallDiameter - L/BigDiameter)
Fornaro 0.8375 1.3629 0.525422
aero 0.92 1.3939 0.473939
Mulletrn 0.90538 1.7408 0.835404
Since John used a superior method, using the known dimensions of the cross section of the beam, and it is the median measurement (using the above-mentioned ratios),
Let's take John's measurements for Brady et.al.
Sorry but this solution doesn't work. See the screenshot and link to drawing. The 1.5inch reference is at an arbitrary depth so you can't use it. The same reason I couldn't use the width of the chamber. Also, we want inside dimensions, not outside.
Sorry but this solution doesn't work. See the screenshot and link to drawing. The 1.5inch reference is at an arbitrary depth so you can't use it. The same reason I couldn't use the width of the chamber. Also, we want inside dimensions, not outside.
Not that I'm right or anything, but I would observe that the visual vertical orientation of the device suggests that the line of the cone's vertical diameter passes thru the center line line of the Faztek thingy, virtually in the same plane perpendicular to the camera. The parallax is to be ignored in my analysis, and the distance of the cone and thingy from the camera is immaterial.
...Thank you for being kind to my eyes, and noticing this John. Much appreciated.
Point being: Twerk the CAD file. Also, in my eye, color is a distraction, and your drawing is hard on old eyes. That's why I converted the JPEG to a touch of grey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOaXTg3nAuY).
...
Notice the 1.5inch dims in yellow in the foreground and background. Because of depth perception, one is behind the test article and the other is in front. That creates a situation where you can't rely on the 1.5inch reference without knowing the viewing angle of the camera and at least one length in the Z axis of the chamber...
....No, it was not a suggestion. It is not based on words, or intuition. It follows from Maxwell's equations.
It has been suggested that the inside must be properly mirrored for the desired M/W resonance. The inside of that cone has to be conically flat. Dollars to donuts sez it ain't. Not if it is made of 1/8" thick copper. The inside may have been polished with Turtle Wax, but it has not been polished nor flattened to Hubble specs. The substrate is too thin. The exterior has a mill finish only. Was it formed over a wood mandrel? Who knows?
...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000003187690/a-real-hoverboard.html?emc=edit_th_20141021&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=18173476
A Real Hoverboard ?
http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-see-potential-dark-matter-from-the-sun-1.16174
And Axions ?
1) Both inner surface ends of the truncated cone must have been made out of copper. Otherwise the cavity would not have the correct boundary conditions to be a resonant cavity: it would be a waveguide. One wouldn't be able to have high Q and resonance if the inner surface of the ends wouldn't be copper.
Notice the 1.5inch dims in yellow in the foreground and background. Because of depth perception, one is behind the test article and the other is in front. That creates a situation where you can't rely on the 1.5inch reference without knowing the viewing angle of the camera and at least one length in the Z axis of the chamber...
Well, I took anudder look at your sketch, and still stick with my interpretation. The camera appears to be damn near perpendicular to the centerline of the cone, and perpendicular to the z-axis of the large end diameter which is nearly centered on the lens of the camera. If anything, the rear of the cone rim is slightly to the left of center, but I ignored that.
I note that the support is not at right angles to the plane of the large diameter of the cone, and not at all at right angles to its own vertical support Faztek, but I don't think that matters.
What matters to the camera is that the Faztek horizontal support is centered on the cone's axis. If that is the case, the dimension that I show should be spot on within a plus or minus. The support is clearly not vertically off center, but it may be nearer or further from the camera than the centerline of the cone's axis. I can't tell, and I can't help that.
The other support that you dimension appears to be a 3" chunk of Faztek, at least to this pair of retinas.
4 Conclusion
Microwave thrusters without propellant does not require propellant, so without erosion from the high temperature gas stream, erosion and heat transfer problem, the performance of the thrusters is not affected by the working environment, at the same time, increasing the spacecraft quality, using different material for the structure can increase the range of thrust, suitable for use in space and near space spacecraft.
There are two ways to explain this new thrusters,
(1) from the Planks hypothesis and Einsteins quantum theory of light, also the theory of microwave to explain the thrust from the thrusters, that is to quantise the injected microwave to the sealed cavity into photons, its travelling speed is the group speed, photons and the thrust cavity wall elastic collision produce the net thrust,
(2) From the classic theory of electrodynamics to explain how the thrust is produce by the thrusters, according to the kinetic energy and conservation of momentum of the electromagnetic system within its volume, Maxwell equation and electromagnetic flux density vector can found out the source of the thrust is coming from the integration of the electromagnetic tensor along the surface of the volume.
Using finite element numerical method to numerical analyse the classical Maxwell equation of electric field of the idealised conical resonator, to obtain the model and practical of the distribution of the electric field of the cavity under 1000W. By analyse the properties under different modes and the different properties. Calculation show that under the four modes, TE011, TE012, TE111 and TM011, the quality factor of TE012 is highest and with highest thrust, followed by TE011. With the Small End of the cavity unchanged, the quality factor and thrust decrease with the increase in the Large End.
The TE10 mode rectangular waveguide is suitable for use in modes TE011 and TE012, and coupling to the side wall of the resonator in where the magnetic field is relatively strong, coupling using coaxial cable is suitable in modes TE011 and TM011, in axis of the resonator where electric field is relatively large.
With 1000W microwave input, using brass as the material of the cavity, using the classical theory of electrodynamics, the maximum theoretical thrust produced in modes TE011 and TE012 is 411mN and 456mN respectively, and the practical measurements are 214mN and 315mN.
With the Small End of the cavity unchanged, the quality factor and thrust decrease with the increase in the Large End.I believe the author is referring to "increase in the large end" relative to the ideal geometry derived near the start of the paper.
Has anyone else looked at this Chinese theory/cavity design paper? ...
By analyse the properties under different modes and the different properties. Calculation show that under the four modes, TE011, TE012, TE111 and TM011, the quality factor of TE012 is highest and with highest thrust, followed by TE011. With the Small End of the cavity unchanged, the quality factor and thrust decrease with the increase in the Large End.
The TE10 mode rectangular waveguide is suitable for use in modes TE011 and TE012, and coupling to the side wall of the resonator in where the magnetic field is relatively strong, coupling using coaxial cable is suitable in modes TE011 and TM011, in axis of the resonator where electric field is relatively large.
With 1000W microwave input, using brass as the material of the cavity, using the classical theory of electrodynamics, the maximum theoretical thrust produced in modes TE011 and TE012 is 411mN and 456mN respectively, and the practical measurements are 214mN and 315mN.
This is a further challenge to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
With the Small End of the cavity unchanged, the quality factor and thrust decrease with the increase in the Large End.
We now have separate confirmation in both China and the USA that thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes.
This is a further challenge to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
It also explains why NASA Eagleworks explored resonance for the mode TE012
]There cannot be any significant irregularities on the inside surface of the truncated cone.
No, it was not a suggestion. It is not based on words, or intuition. It follows from Maxwell's equations.
John, you just cannot have a high Q with a poor, irregular surface on the inside, when the skin depth is a couple of micrometers or less. You don't need to exaggerate...
John, if there is no inner copper on the ends of the cavity (showing PCB board on the outside) then you cannot have a resonant cavity, so the inner surface ends must have been made out of highly-conductive material like copper.
We now have separate confirmation in both China and the USA that thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes.
This is a further challenge to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
It also explains why NASA Eagleworks explored resonance for the mode TE012
It almost seems that the Magnetic field is interacting with Space itself in this case, much how gravity distorts spacethis configuration of a magnetic field appeasrs to be doing the same thing.
As to 1.5" & 3" Faztek. If my assumption that the horizontal member, which I took to be 1.5" or 3.81 cm is NOT in the center of the device, then my A1.4 measurement is way off.
Looking again at the piece of Faztek jutting out towards the camera, and looking at the catalog, I see a straightforward resemblance to the 3" square Faztek, not the 1.5" Faztek.
http://www.faztek.net/products.asp?cat=11
Blah blah arguing about words (not the equation)...
As to 1.5" & 3" Faztek. If my assumption that the horizontal member, which I took to be 1.5" or 3.81 cm is NOT in the center of the device, then my A1.4 measurement is way off.
Looking again at the piece of Faztek jutting out towards the camera, and looking at the catalog, I see a straightforward resemblance to the 3" square Faztek, not the 1.5" Faztek.
http://www.faztek.net/products.asp?cat=11
Is this the 3" by 3" Faztek that you referring to?
(If not could you please post the specific 3" by 3" Faztek picture you are referring to?)
Because that looks very different from this 1.5" by 1.5", which looks much more as to what is in Brady's
Me a "homo primitivo" without AutoCAD and just looking at picture and just counting
Me a "homo primitivo" just looking at 2 slots per side on the 3"by3" and 1 slot per side on the 1.5" by 1.5"
Abstract:Aim.The introduction of the full paper reviews Refs.1 and 2 and points out that we find that the method
of Ref.2,authored by Qiu Xiaoming et al and originally used on a completely different research project,is very effective
for performing our performance calculations,which we explain in sections l。2 and 3.Section l briefs Ref.
1,whose billy author,Roger Shawyer,proposed a theory of microwave propulsion of spacecraft.Sections 2 and 3
explain how we apply Ref.28 method;their core consists of:(1)wi凼t}le finite element method。we simulate the
Maxwell8 field equations for the microwave radiation thruster in the roundtable cavity;(2)we acquire the resonant
modes of the round-table cavity and the electromagnetic fields of 1000W inside the roundtable cavity;(3)we
analyze the characteristics of the microwave radiation thruster of different cavity s叽ctures and at different resonant
modes;(4)the simulation results,presented in Tables 1 and 2,and their analysis show preliminarily that:(1)
the quality factor and thrust at TE012 mode are the largest;(2)for the incident microwave of 1000W and 2.45GHz,
with copper as the thrusterB material.the largest theoretical thrust based on the classical theory of electrodynamics
is 41 1 and 456mN respectively at TEoll and TEol2 modes.
http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010paper.pdf (http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010paper.pdf)
Same paper as before except the original Chinese language version, but this time I went to the end. There exists an abstract in English of another related paper after the reference section. It says "Copper" is used.QuoteAbstract:Aim.The introduction of the full paper reviews Refs.1 and 2 and points out that we find that the method
of Ref.2,authored by Qiu Xiaoming et al and originally used on a completely different research project,is very effective
for performing our performance calculations,which we explain in sections l。2 and 3.Section l briefs Ref.
1,whose billy author,Roger Shawyer,proposed a theory of microwave propulsion of spacecraft.Sections 2 and 3
explain how we apply Ref.2’8 method;their core consists of:(1)wi凼t}le finite element method。we simulate the
Maxwell’8 field equations for the microwave radiation thruster in the round—table cavity;(2)we acquire the resonant
modes of the round-table cavity and the electromagnetic fields of 1000W inside the round—table cavity;(3)we
analyze the characteristics of the microwave radiation thruster of different cavity s叽ctures and at different resonant
modes;(4)the simulation results,presented in Tables 1 and 2,and their analysis show preliminarily that:(1)
the quality factor and thrust at TE012 mode are the largest;(2)for the incident microwave of 1000W and 2.45GHz,
with copper as the thruster’B material.the largest theoretical thrust based on the classical theory of electrodynamics
is 41 1 and 456mN respectively at TEoll and TEol2 modes.
We now have separate confirmation in both China and the USA that thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes.
This is a further challenge to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
It also explains why NASA Eagleworks explored resonance for the mode TE012
It almost seems that the Magnetic field is interacting with Space itself in this case, much how gravity distorts spacethis configuration of a magnetic field appeasrs to be doing the same thing.
This is my thinking:
It is the electric field modes (not the magnetic modes) that show the greater Q and greater thrust, not the other way around. There is no such thing as "thrust" using classical Maxwell's equations. It is a closed system. The magnetic field vectors from both bases point towards the center. There is no net magnetic force on the center of mass using classical Maxwell's equations.
If on the other hand, one uses non-classical physics it doesn't follow that the force must come from the magnetic field, on the contrary, for example McCulloch's explanation of inertial changes due to Unruh radiation, it is the photons inertia that matters.
To enable propulsion one must have an open system: ... an external aether ...
QUESTION: Have you found any pictures? Any dimensions on the Chinese EM Drive?
Fa=Fa1-Fa2-Fa3cosθ. In order to obtain the largest thrust, the design of the cavity requires Fa1/Fa2 to be the largest, Fa3/Fa1 to be the smallest, so Fa≈Fa1-Fa2.
Fa=Fa1-Fa2-Fa3cosθ. In order to obtain the largest thrust, the design of the cavity requires Fa1/Fa2 to be the largest, Fa3/Fa1 to be the smallest, so Fa≈Fa1-Fa2.
We now have separate confirmation in both China and the USA that thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes.
This is a further challenge [ and a hint ] to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
It also explains why NASA Eagleworks explored resonance for the mode TE012
EDIT: Electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of the same electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. Therefore my original wording (challenge to thought process) should be changed to "challenge and hint". It is a powerful hint to make us think as to what is going on.
We now have separate confirmation in both China and the USA that thrust force measurements are related to the TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC modes, since their mode shape result in greater thrust force/PowerInput than the TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC mode shapes.
This is a further challenge [ and a hint ] to explaining the measured thrust forces in these EM Drives as resulting from the magnetic field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field or with other magnetic fields (like the magnetic damper)
It also explains why NASA Eagleworks explored resonance for the mode TE012
EDIT: Electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of the same electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. Therefore my original wording (challenge to thought process) should be changed to "challenge and hint". It is a powerful hint to make us think as to what is going on.
The electromagnetic fields, standing wave or otherwise, inside the cavity would not be expected to have any interaction with the geomagnetic field. First they are AC and second there is no current flowing in the air. So the claimed em mode is unrelated to any possible geomagnetic attraction. There would have to be a DC current loop somewhere for the anomalous thrust to be caused by interaction with the geomagnetic field. I also don't think the cavity's shape is the reason for the high Q and resonance at specific frequencies. It isn't a waveguide. It is just a shielded box. The resonant frequency is determined by the loop dimensions at the feedpoint or by a 1/4 λ length of Cu fastened to the box at one end. Here is a diagram of a cavity filter used in radio communication. The length of the inner Cu rod determines the resonant frequency. The cavity's size has little effect on the resonant frequency since changing the size only changes the parasitic capacitance by small amounts.
One of the drawings of the em-drive device shows an inner can shape at the small end. It's possible that is what determines the resonant frequency and high Q. It would have to be made from Cu and be electrically connected to the cavity at one end.
So the complete total of all the photons in the cavity are giving their momentum up, and more, to thrust every second. How can that possible make sense. And even don't look at the energy.
Unruh waves can't come close to making a big enough change in mass to cause lost mass to exceed the existing mass. (mi=m(1-L/4T)) For this to work, T would need to be equal to or less than L/4.
There is one way of course but if I say "Tachyons," I'll likely be banned.
You know, this whole thing doesn't make any sense.
For an ideal photon rocket F=P/c, = 3.3356E-09 Newtons per watt and for the EM thruster, it is F ~= P*Q/c. For the case, for example, of 850 watts with Q = 5900, P*Q/c = 16.7 mN, compared to the measured value of 16 mN. (They are not all that close but the range is 0.2 to 2, discounting Brady b" case with the Chinese cases approaching twice the total momentum of all the photons --- per second.
So the complete total of all the photons in the cavity are giving their momentum up, and more, to thrust every second. How can that possible make sense. And even don't look at the energy.
Unruh waves can't come close to making a big enough change in mass to cause lost mass to exceed the existing mass. (mi=m(1-L/4T)) For this to work, T would need to be equal to or less than L/4.
There is one way of course but if I say "Tachyons," I'll likely be banned.
Transfer it all and you've transferred only half enough.
QuoteTransfer it all and you've transferred only half enough.
No. I did not use a factor of 2. If I double momentum then transfer it all, I've transferred just enough. But if it bounces off the wall then how does it transfer outside the cavity?
Yes, we need more and better data. But if we assume the current data is in error then we've wasted 163 pages of discussion. If the current data is right then there is not enough momentum in the system provide the measured external thrust.Well, concerning transferring momentum to the wall, it makes more sense to assume complete reflection rather than complete dissipation. If you have a mass swinging from a pendulum elastically hitting a wall you transfer kinetic energy to the wall every time you hit the wall. However if the swinging mass is made of completely inelastic play-doh, it will hit the wall once and that's it. [And yes perpetual motion people: I'm aware that we have to conserve energy and hence have some losses with every impact. Q is not infinite, it only ranges from 7000 to 50000 which is way smaller than infinite]
Who knows of another mechanism to generate external force without momentum transfer or a reactive surface?
Casimir effect but that is internal, I've never heard of an external Casimir effect. Maybe the Unruh effect sets up a perfectly conducting surface just nanometers from the cavity ends. That could generate the outside pressure imbalance that we need.
Maybe "somehow there is" a perfectly conducting surface set up just nanometers from the cavity ends. That could generate the outside pressure imbalance that we need.No, there is no real and no virtual perfectly conducting wall a nanometer away from the cavity. No, ionized air and electrons cannot form such a "virtual wall" for a Casimir type effect. Not for a classic Casimir effect and much less for a dynamic Casimir effect. Ions in air cannot form something acting as a wall for the Casimir effect purpose.
Could the ionized air and electrons from the wall interacting with the RF wave electric and magnetic fields do something like that?
A mechanism like that would solve our momentum transfer problem as Casimir effect is an accepted phenomena and higher Q could conceivably force the "pseudo conductor plate of ionized something" closer to the wall. Decreasing plate separation increases Casimir force. That also fits.
Of course their could be an oxidation layer on the copper, too.
Maybe "somehow there is" a perfectly conducting surface set up just nanometers from the cavity ends. That could generate the outside pressure imbalance that we need.No, there is no real and no virtual perfectly conducting wall a nanometer away from the cavity. No, ionized air and electrons cannot form such a "virtual wall" for a Casimir type effect. Not for a classic Casimir effect and much less for a dynamic Casimir effect. Ions in air cannot form something acting as a wall for the Casimir effect purpose.
Could the ionized air and electrons from the wall interacting with the RF wave electric and magnetic fields do something like that?
A mechanism like that would solve our momentum transfer problem as Casimir effect is an accepted phenomena and higher Q could conceivably force the "pseudo conductor plate of ionized something" closer to the wall. Decreasing plate separation increases Casimir force. That also fits.
Of course their could be an oxidation layer on the copper, too.
Were one to postulate ionized air discharge, a corona discharge essentially resulting in electrohydrodynamic thrust would be more likely. An opposite force to the direction of discharge acting at the location where the corona discharge is taking place.
...
I don't see any place for leaks in the axial direction.
...
What you are saying is that these EM thruster devices need to be checked with a smoke trails, like air flow in a wind tunnel is highlighted. Hold a lighted punk stick next to it and turn the device on.Have to think about what would a time constant involved in delay depend on. The electric effect is practically instantaneous. Momentum transfer has to do with hydrodynamics. There is no heat capacity and thermal difussivity involved like in a thermal effect. Time constant could depend on Reynolds number, hence viscosity, but viscosity of air is low. Also, speed of sound in air is 343 metres per second, which is pretty fast for these considerations.
Wouldn't their be some time delay between power on/off and thrust on and off?
...
Does anyone want to take a crack at estimating the dimensions of the flight thruster. It operated at 3.85GHz and weighed 2.92 Kg. That is a new operating frequency data point for us if we can get dimension. If nothing else, we should be able to get the taper angle pretty accurately, as well as the ratios of big/little and big/height.
Please provide a link for this " flight thruster.. operated at 3.85GHz and weighed 2.92 Kg.", and if possible attach a picture. Thanks
The time delay is not noticeable. I don't know if the time delay difference between this device and the EM thrusters could be detected. I don't think it can be with the data we have available to us.
The time delay is not noticeable. I don't know if the time delay difference between this device and the EM thrusters could be detected. I don't think it can be with the data we have available to us.
Actually the time delay is visible in these two plots of thrust data vs time. The first one is from Shawyer's 2008 paper. His 2013 and 2014 IAC papers don't have this kind of raw data. Both the up and down thrust roughly follow an exponential rise after power is applied and there is continued acceleration after the power is turned off.
The second plot is from the JSC paper - Brady, White, et al. This also has a roughly exponential rise and continued thrust after RF power is turned off until the Cal pulse wipes it out.
Both experiments have a thermal effect signature.
What about the gauge constant for the springs? How far does it have to move for the force to be read ?
What about the gauge constant for the springs? How far does it have to move for the force to be read ?
<<Displacement of the pendulum arm is measured via a Linear Displacement Sensor (LDS). The primary LDS components consist of a combined laser and optical sensor on the fixed structure and a mirror on the pendulum arm. The LDS laser emits a beam which is reflected by the mirror and subsequently detected by the optical sensor. The LDS software calculates the displacement (down to the sub-micrometer level) based upon the beam reflection time. Prior to a test run data take, the LDS is positioned to a known displacement datum (usually 500 micrometers) via mechanical adjustments to its mounting platform. Gross adjustments are performed via set screws. Fine adjustments are performed using manually-operated calibrated screw mechanisms and a remotely controlled motorized mechanism that can be operated with the chamber door closed and the chamber at vacuum. The remote adjustment capability is necessary since the LDS datum will change whenever a change to the test facility environment affects the roll-out table or the chamber – e.g., whenever the chamber door is closed or latched and whenever the chamber is evacuated. Once the LDS displacement is adjusted in the final test environment, further adjustment between test run data takes is usually not required.>>
What about the gauge constant for the springs? How far does it have to move for the force to be read ?
<<Displacement of the pendulum arm is measured via a Linear Displacement Sensor (LDS). The primary LDS components consist of a combined laser and optical sensor on the fixed structure and a mirror on the pendulum arm. The LDS laser emits a beam which is reflected by the mirror and subsequently detected by the optical sensor. The LDS software calculates the displacement (down to the sub-micrometer level) based upon the beam reflection time. Prior to a test run data take, the LDS is positioned to a known displacement datum (usually 500 micrometers) via mechanical adjustments to its mounting platform. Gross adjustments are performed via set screws. Fine adjustments are performed using manually-operated calibrated screw mechanisms and a remotely controlled motorized mechanism that can be operated with the chamber door closed and the chamber at vacuum. The remote adjustment capability is necessary since the LDS datum will change whenever a change to the test facility environment affects the roll-out table or the chamber – e.g., whenever the chamber door is closed or latched and whenever the chamber is evacuated. Once the LDS displacement is adjusted in the final test environment, further adjustment between test run data takes is usually not required.>>
Yes, but how much displacement are we talking about and how long does it take to get there?
What about the gauge constant for the springs? How far does it have to move for the force to be read ?
<<Displacement of the pendulum arm is measured via a Linear Displacement Sensor (LDS). The primary LDS components consist of a combined laser and optical sensor on the fixed structure and a mirror on the pendulum arm. The LDS laser emits a beam which is reflected by the mirror and subsequently detected by the optical sensor. The LDS software calculates the displacement (down to the sub-micrometer level) based upon the beam reflection time. Prior to a test run data take, the LDS is positioned to a known displacement datum (usually 500 micrometers) via mechanical adjustments to its mounting platform. Gross adjustments are performed via set screws. Fine adjustments are performed using manually-operated calibrated screw mechanisms and a remotely controlled motorized mechanism that can be operated with the chamber door closed and the chamber at vacuum. The remote adjustment capability is necessary since the LDS datum will change whenever a change to the test facility environment affects the roll-out table or the chamber – e.g., whenever the chamber door is closed or latched and whenever the chamber is evacuated. Once the LDS displacement is adjusted in the final test environment, further adjustment between test run data takes is usually not required.>>
Yes, but how much displacement are we talking about and how long does it take to get there?
I made a kludge estimate of the Flight thruster dimensions operating at 385 GHz.
w-small = 7.062943185 cm
w-big = 11.02062266 cm
height = 7.114289902 cm
...
What about the gauge constant for the springs? How far does it have to move for the force to be read ?
<<Displacement of the pendulum arm is measured via a Linear Displacement Sensor (LDS). The primary LDS components consist of a combined laser and optical sensor on the fixed structure and a mirror on the pendulum arm. The LDS laser emits a beam which is reflected by the mirror and subsequently detected by the optical sensor. The LDS software calculates the displacement (down to the sub-micrometer level) based upon the beam reflection time. Prior to a test run data take, the LDS is positioned to a known displacement datum (usually 500 micrometers) via mechanical adjustments to its mounting platform. Gross adjustments are performed via set screws. Fine adjustments are performed using manually-operated calibrated screw mechanisms and a remotely controlled motorized mechanism that can be operated with the chamber door closed and the chamber at vacuum. The remote adjustment capability is necessary since the LDS datum will change whenever a change to the test facility environment affects the roll-out table or the chamber – e.g., whenever the chamber door is closed or latched and whenever the chamber is evacuated. Once the LDS displacement is adjusted in the final test environment, further adjustment between test run data takes is usually not required.>>
Yes, but how much displacement are we talking about and how long does it take to get there?
Also Paul March wrote in this thread: << The Riverhawk C-flex torsion bearing's spring constant is a nominal 0.007 in-Lb/deg., but that varies with the mass load mounted on the torque pendulum arm and selected balance point of the test article mass and its counterbalance mass on the other end of the pendulum arm relative to the torque pendulum’s center of rotation. >>
However this torsional spring constant greatly disagrees with the natural frequency quoted by Paul March. The natural frequency quoted by Paul March indicates a much stiffer spring constant.
....
A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself. (i should explain that I've built quite a few of these type and always found that to be a problem, also used force feedback for zero displacement...but that was a while ago)
....
A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself. (i should explain that I've built quite a few of these type and always found that to be a problem, also used force feedback for zero displacement...but that was a while ago)
A higher frequency because you think that the frequency is due to beam bending rather than torsion of the bearing?
In other words, this would mean that the frequency Paul March is referring to would not be the lowest frequency.
I did some calculations some time ago based on known stiffness of the Faztek beams (1.5" by 1.5"), and the bending frequency would be way too high compared to Paul March's stated frequency assuming the inverted pendulum to be effectively clamped by the bearings as a cantilevered beam. So if the frequency given by Paul March is related to beam bending it would have to be also due to substantial flexibility from the bearings (not providing a perfect clamp).
As having done R&D in dynamics work too I completely agree with your statement "w/ all that stuff hanging out there...not too crazy about the way the chamber is set on."....
A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself. (i should explain that I've built quite a few of these type and always found that to be a problem, also used force feedback for zero displacement...but that was a while ago)
A higher frequency because you think that the frequency is due to beam bending rather than torsion of the bearing?
In other words, this would mean that the frequency Paul March is referring to would not be the lowest frequency.
I did some calculations some time ago based on known stiffness of the Faztek beams (1.5" by 1.5"), and the bending frequency would be way too high compared to Paul March's stated frequency assuming the inverted pendulum to be effectively clamped by the bearings as a cantilevered beam. So if the frequency given by Paul March is related to beam bending it would have to be also due to substantial flexibility from the bearings (not providing a perfect clamp).
Tough call w/ all that stuff hanging out there. Can't see too much in the pictures and not too crazy about the way the chamber is set on. Could be anything that vibrates. What were the frequencies ?
The natural oscillation period of the pendulum arm when loaded with the RF amplifier, its RF plumbing and the test article was around 4.5 seconds.
What you are saying is that these EM thruster devices need to be checked with a smoke trails, like air flow in a wind tunnel is highlighted. Hold a lighted punk stick next to it and turn the device on.Have to think about what would a time constant involved in delay depend on. The electric effect is practically instantaneous. Momentum transfer has to do with hydrodynamics. There is no heat capacity and thermal difussivity involved like in a thermal effect. Time constant could depend on Reynolds number, hence viscosity, but viscosity of air is low. Also, speed of sound in air is 343 metres per second, which is pretty fast for these considerations.
Wouldn't their be some time delay between power on/off and thrust on and off?
What is the time delay for the craft shown in this video? Seems to take off in an impulsive manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfrqzBGPnwE
The time delay is not noticeable. I don't know if the time delay difference between this device and the EM thrusters could be detected. I don't think it can be with the data we have available to us.
Actually the time delay is visible in these two plots of thrust data vs time. The first one is from Shawyer's 2008 paper. His 2013 and 2014 IAC papers don't have this kind of raw data. Both the up and down thrust roughly follow an exponential rise after power is applied and there is continued acceleration after the power is turned off.
The second plot is from the JSC paper - Brady, White, et al. This also has a roughly exponential rise and continued thrust after RF power is turned off until the Cal pulse wipes it out.
Both experiments have a thermal effect signature.
Yes, some kind of a delay but not thermal for NASA Eagleworks. Around page 30 to 40 of this thread I calculated the thermal time delay based on the thermal diffusivity (thermal capacity and thermal conductivity) for the NASA Eagleworks experiments and ruled out the time delay and time decay as due to thermal effects because the Fourier time due to thermal effects is much longer than the ~2 second delay in the NASA Eagleworks experiments in the pulse rise from the baseline.
The exponentially decaying rise after the initial 2 sec pulse may indeed be a thermal effect. Maybe related to their "baseline problem due to the magnetic damper interaction with the power cable..."
Ionic wind time delay ?
Paul March had also though about thermal effects and wrote about it. It is interesting that while these researchers can rule out thermal effects (based on standard heat transfer texts) the theory of ionic wind has not been written until recently. Perhaps nobody has computed or ruled out ionic wind, really...
Here is the PDF mentioned above.
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
Is there a paper with more details to be published ?
"4 independent organisations, in 3 different countries" : what organisations ? with what kind of balance ? Someone present at the conference to take notes and give some context ?
...
I wish we would get a Cavendish-type measurement (as performed by Brito Marini and Galian to nullify the MET-type drive) at John Hopkins as soon as possible.
...
.....
This is not correct. What they tested was an MLT type drive not a MET type drive.
Am I to understand this 'Ionic Wind' explanation means this device would not produce thrust in a vacuum - or in space?
Good question. There are several explanations that have been proposed for how these (ionic wind) "lifters" work.
From the theoretical explanation and experiments conducted by Prof.Barrett at MIT the answer is no, they wouldn't work in a vacuum.
Am I to understand this 'Ionic Wind' explanation means this device would not produce thrust in a vacuum - or in space?
Still useful then as a general principle if they will operate in an atmosphere, question is to me in relation to space how much of an atmosphere do they need to operate.
How can it be postulated that Evanescent Waves by themselves can solve the closed-system, momentum-conservation problem?
They can't by themselves using classical physics. One spaceship may transmit an evanescent field to move external small nanosatellites next to it (would not be an interesting form of propulsion, and the center of mass composed by the nanosatellites and the spacecraft system would not accelerate either). But it cannot move itself just by using Evanescent waves without any external field.
A spaceship cannot propel itself by using Evanescent Waves any better than it can propel itself using Electromagnetic Fields. It is a closed system.
A swimmer can swim in the ocean because the ocean water has its own inertia and resists acceleration. An astronaut cannot propel itself by waving her arms and legs in space.
To enable propulsion one must have an open system: external dark matter, external fields: like the Earth's magnetic field, an external aether, even consideration of the external quantum vacuum, etc. But certainly not just Evanescent Fields by themselves that are self generated and only interacting in a closed system.
To avoid this confusion one must rely on conservation principles: conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, and variational principles.
QuoteStill useful then as a general principle if they will operate in an atmosphere, question is to me in relation to space how much of an atmosphere do they need to operate.
Hence the 'cheat' - have the area around the electrodes partly enclosed, and inject just enough gas into the area for the device to function. You'd have to replenish the gas fairly often, though.
But if the 'EM Drive' is a variant of these 'ionic wind lifters' that can function in a vacuum, then things get interesting.
Vacuum testing needed.
QuoteSo the complete total of all the photons in the cavity are giving their momentum up, and more, to thrust every second. How can that possible make sense. And even don't look at the energy.
Unruh waves can't come close to making a big enough change in mass to cause lost mass to exceed the existing mass. (mi=m(1-L/4T)) For this to work, T would need to be equal to or less than L/4.
There is one way of course but if I say "Tachyons," I'll likely be banned.
Then don't say 'Tachyons.'
I've has idle thoughts about a long shot possible resolution to this problem these past couple of days.
Muletron posted a video a couple days ago giving sort of a capsule history of research into subatomic particles. The part that intrigued me was where the narrator put forth a chart showing a dozen plus subatomic particles discovered in the search for the Higgs boson. His attitude - which I'd seen before in print - was one of embarrassed dismissal. The attitude being these particles are a sort of unprofitable sideline, not worth detailed investigation. Yet I wonder...might not one or more varieties of these particles hold part of the solution to this drive? They are elementary 'building block' type critters - maybe certain rules don't fully apply to them? Maybe they're attracted to photons?
I made a ... estimate of the Flight thruster dimensions operating at 385 GHz.
w-small = 7.062943185 cm
w-big = 11.02062266 cm
height = 7.114289902 cm
I ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...
w-small = 1"
w-big = 2"
height = 3"
...
I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ...
A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.
A much higher frequency...
...My impression is that the discrepancy...
Another device of equivalent preagmatic utility.Doesn't the pictured device only work in a partial vacuum (thus the glass enclosure) and neither the discussed NASA Eagleworks, Shawyer or Chinese experiments were conducted in such partial vacuum conditions inside glass enclosures?
I ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...
w-small = 1"
w-big = 2"
height = 3"
...
I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ...
This is circumstantial and corroborating evidence supporting the conjecture regarding the intentional reluctance of the experimentors to freely share their data.
The reluctance is certainly understandable, for at least three reasons, none of which can be discussed except on an informal basis among disinterested professional friends:
1. A surfeit of professional pride in understanding the obscure physics, combined with the typical disregard paid by professionals to amateur website contributors.
B. A pragmatic need to share without sharing, knowing full well the economic benefits of a vastly superior propulsive method.
iii. A stubborn refusal to realize that nothing is being seen.
Vee. Other reasons, such as keeping the rabble occupied with measuring Faztek thingies, so as to keep them off the streets protesting the forty year lack of accomplishment at NASA at doing what was promised back then; a peaceful future realizing mankind's destiny in the universe at large.
As I mentioned at:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1274449#msg1274449
I note that we are spending a lotta time arguing about these dimensions. The good Doctor asked, rather politely, a hundred or more pages ago, but got only partial dimensional answers. Since then Paul March decided to go mum.
Easily answered questions go without answer, which reflects on those who experiment, not on those who try to understand.
I'd like to thank the EagleWorks team for their help and cooperation. (They should probably set up shop in Awizona; 'twould help their worldview.)
On the plus side, thanks to decent forum moderation, we no longer have to hear from those who disparage everybody's credentials.
No:
Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.Collective interested in finding out the reason for EMDrive's measured thrust
I ... estimate ... the Flight thruster dimensions ...
w-small = 1"
w-big = 2"
height = 3"
...
I am dizzy with all the tests that Shawyer has conducted and with the different names he gives the tested device. ...
Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?
Yes, unequivocally.
Tried have you, young Paduan. Now, looook harder must you, if to find a new force you seek.
I've been following that work since '09, and the reported effects continue to verge on noise, lack repeatability, are not supported by a fuller disclosure, and are largely ignored by paid and tenured faculty. Each successive experiment claims a subtly different operating principle; still, the trendline for results is flat at best, and not pragmatically applicable at worst.
If you, Frob, Mull, NotSo, Zen, and who all else, believe that there is a line of inquiry which would support a theory of pushing against, for want of a better term, the ether, then maybe it's time for a new thread, laying out the hardware and protocol for a new experiment.
I offer to buy the five of you a Scotch, served by my mixologist, natch, the day after the device is truthfully floated across the conference room table.
Edit: Uhhhh.... the six of you. How could I have forgotten the good doctor?
No:
Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?QuoteThe reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.Collective interested in finding out the reason for EMDrive's measured thrust
Well, there are still those of us here whose only purpose being in this thread was and still is to objectively understand the reason for EMDrives's measured thrust.No:
Does this mean we have collectively gotten to the point that there is not enough information available to make any conclusions?QuoteThe reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.Collective interested in finding out the reason for EMDrive's measured thrust
Disagree. Time to create theory, not attempt to understand that which is being kept under wraps.
In the realm of ideas everything depends on enthusiasm... in the real world all rests on perseverance.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Could you repeat that?A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.
Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.
Could you repeat that?A much higher frequency might indicate flex in the arm itself.
Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.
Concerning NotSoSureOfIt question regarding March perhaps not quoting the lowest mechanical natural torsional frequency of the inverted pendulum, why would that be "Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening" ?
Why would arm-bending-motion of 1.5"by1.5" Aluminum beams be evidence of "not all that much happening"?. ...
Of course the original comment was to address the time delay.
Prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening.
There are microneutons of force moving lbs of mass against an unknown damped spring constant to equilibrate after an unknown distance in an unknown time.
I attach the time response I computed for the nonlinear coupled equations of motion for the torsional inverted pendulum using Mathematica, and the known parameters. I obtained the nonlinear coupled equations of motion computing the Lagrangian also using Mathematica.
As it is evident from the graph the 2 sec time delay comes straight from the dynamics of the torsional inverted pendulum. The 2 sec time delay is certainly not a thermal effect, it is fully explained by classical inertia response. Any mechanical system of the form m d2xdt2 + c dx/dt + k x = F(t) has a time-dependent response.
I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals as the Journal of Applied Mechanics concerning calculation of much more complicated response than this. See for example: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1407189
A simple calculation of the Fourier dimensionless time based on the known heat capacity, density and thermal conductivity for the materials involved, as well as characteristic dimensions, readily shows that this 2 sec time delay cannot be due to thermal effects, as also remarked by Paul March (using other words) early on in this thread.
...As we have already established earlier in this thread in discussions with Paul March, there is a (separate from the 2 sec delay) known issue (already discussed in the NASA Eagleworks report) of longer term drift of the baseline that Paul March attributed to interaction between the magnetic damper and the power cable as well as thermal effects from the unit they have at the back. Observe that this longer term drift also has a damping/inertial component.
No doubt there is an inertial component to the thrust step response. However its presence doesn't negate a thermal signature in the thrust step response. The graphs we have seen do not rule that out. If an exponential step response, due to a thermal effect, was convolved with the step response you derived it would show the exponential shape of Shawyer's and the JSC thrust plots.
It also doesn't explain why the thrust continues after the RF is turned off. The plots record thrust, not velocity. Inertia of the balance system and apparatus can explain continued velocity but not a continued force after the RF is switched off. The continued force seen in both Shawyer's and the JSC graphs indicate stored energy that is being released after the RF is switched off.
All these time delays cannot be juxtaposed together into one big messy ball to ... conclude this as "Prima facie evidence that nothing is happening."
...throwing the baby with the bathwater...
...only that there was prima facie evidence that not all that much is happening....Went back and fix'd that. Much more (orders of magnitude more) is happening with Shawyer's demo experiment and the Chinese experiments but unfortunately they are not as well documented as NASA's experiments hence the discussion centers on NASA's.
There are microneutons of force moving lbs of mass against an unknown damped spring constant to equilibrate after an unknown distance in an unknown time.
Time to create theory, not attempt to understand that which is being kept under wraps.
Well, there are still those of us here whose only purpose being in this thread was and still is to objectively understand the reason for EMDrives's measured thrust.
....Thanks for calculating that. I continue to be impressed with the useful amount of information you get from the reports. I had not noticed "Shawyer's cooled test stand"
For the Brady cases (first 3) the moving air volume and velocity would be overlooked if they were not watching for it.
Shawyer tested his experimental device within an enclosure to avoid artifacts from external air currents. Ionic wind would have been internal to his enclosure.
Shawyer tested his demonstrator on a cooled test stand. That would probably mask any ionic wind.
I don't know anything about the test setup for the flight model or about the Chinese test setup, as regards to detecting ionic wind.
....Thanks for calculating that. I continue to be impressed with the useful amount of information you get from the reports. I had not noticed "Shawyer's cooled test stand and his enclosure"
For the Brady cases (first 3) the moving air volume and velocity would be overlooked if they were not watching for it.
Shawyer tested his experimental device within an enclosure to avoid artifacts from external air currents. Ionic wind would have been internal to his enclosure.
Shawyer tested his demonstrator on a cooled test stand. That would probably mask any ionic wind.
I don't know anything about the test setup for the flight model or about the Chinese test setup, as regards to detecting ionic wind.
I will be posting the force/PowerInput from an ionic wind calculation: it comes pretty close to the measured values.
Not to forget the energy stored in the spring. (the plots record displacement)The two plots I attached are marked with units of thrust; micronewtons on graph from the Bray, White, et al paper and gram in Shawyer's 2008 paper. This thrust is derived from the torsion spring angular displacement. For the thrust to continue after the RF has been switched off, which is the case in both plots, there must be stored energy. The torsion spring is part of the measuring system and works in opposition to any thrust generated by the em drive so it is not the source of the stored energy. Thermal energy, if it was the source of the measured thrust, would continue to radiate from the cone section after the RF was switched off. The heated air would create a thrust in the same direction as is claimed for RF effects inside the device.
... This to show order of magnitude of the air mass and velocity of the ionic wind that would create the measured force, nothing more.I am reviewing papers on ionic wind (electrohydrodynamics) that place constraints on the wind generated under AC fields. We also know the magnitude of the Electric Field, the frequency, the TE modes, etc.
I recall that Paul March wrote that the EMDrives tested at NASA Eagleworks had a temperature that never rose more than 1 deg (F ? or C?) above room temperature.
Anybody recall that statement? Is the temperature measurement in the NASA Eagleworks report? Using search I cannot find it in the text. Is it in the pictures?
I also recall AcesHigh reporting on information elsewhere reporting March's statement he made on this thread regarding temperature. Was that at nextbigfuture? Does anybody still have a link for that?
BTW, the copper frustum's temperature never rose more than 1.0 degree F. when using the above average power levels and test articles.
Best,
_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX
BTW, the copper frustum's temperature never rose more than 1.0 degree F. when using the above average power levels and test articles.
Best,
_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX
We found that this slope change after the test article and RF amplifer were turned on for 10-to-20 seconds was apprently due to IR radiation from the amplifier's heatsink that is mounted on the back side of the torque penlulum on an 8" square platform was affecting the top C-flex bearing more than the lower one. We tried aluminum shielding the top bearing assembly from the heatsink IR source and managed to reverse the metioned thermal slope in the thrust plots, but after shielding the bottom one we could reduce it but still coundn't completely get rid of this thremal drift artifact. Currently we are just living with it.
The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system.
I presume notsosureofit is referring to this picture:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=616615;image)
Prior to the TM211 evaluations, COMSOL® analysis indicated that the TE012 was an effective thrust generation mode for the tapered cavity thruster being evaluated, so this mode was explored early in the evaluation process. Figure 22 shows a test run at the TE012 mode with an operating frequency of 1880.4 MHz. The measured quality factor was ~22,000, with a COMSOL prediction of 21,817. The measured power applied to the test article was measured to be 2.6 watts, and the (net) measured thrust was 55.4 micronewtons. With an input power of 2.6 watts, correcting for the quality factor, the predicted thrust is 50 micronewtons. However, since the TE012 mode had numerous other RF modes in very close proximity, it was impractical to repeatedly operate the system in this mode, so the decision was made to evaluate the TM211 modes instead.
Don't want to forget that thrust has been measured in the same axial direction relative to the thruster whether the thruster was pointed up, down, left or right. This speaks strongly against outside thermal drafts.
It does not speak to thermal expansion of course.
Ok. That's well thought out. Now can you explain the lack of thrust from the Brady device without dielectric? Remove the dielectric and there is no thrust. What happened to the heat dissipation?
The other problem that continues to arise is the total momentum .vs. the power dissipated
You must have meant to write "transmits heat energy to the surrounding air byDon't want to forget that thrust has been measured in the same axial direction relative to the thruster whether the thruster was pointed up, down, left or right. This speaks strongly against outside thermal drafts.
It does not speak to thermal expansion of course.
My theory on thermally generated thrust claims the cone section transmits heat energy to the surrounding air by conduction. The two ends do not have exposed Copper so the heat flow from each end would be much less. FR4 (high density fiberglass as used in PCBs) is a better insulator than Copper. The fact that March saw < 1 degree change in temperature would be expected because of the good heat transfer from the Copper cone section to the surrounding air. There is no mention of the surrounding air temperature so I am assuming this < 1 degree change refers to just the Copper section of the device.
...
You must have meant "transmits heat energy to the surrounding air byDon't want to forget that thrust has been measured in the same axial direction relative to the thruster whether the thruster was pointed up, down, left or right. This speaks strongly against outside thermal drafts.
It does not speak to thermal expansion of course.
My theory on thermally generated thrust claims the cone section transmits heat energy to the surrounding air by conduction. The two ends do not have exposed Copper so the heat flow from each end would be much less. FR4 (high density fiberglass as used in PCBs) is a better insulator than Copper. The fact that March saw < 1 degree change in temperature would be expected because of the good heat transfer from the Copper cone section to the surrounding air. There is no mention of the surrounding air temperature so I am assuming this < 1 degree change refers to just the Copper section of the device.
...conductionconvection" because heat transfer by convection in fluids like air occurs much faster than by conduction. Air has very low thermal conductivity and very low thermal diffusivity, so heat does not get transferred in air by conduction, but by convection.
But at NASA Eagleworks the measured forces were in the horizontal direction. Furthermore, the direction of the force was always oriented towards the large diameter base, even when they flipped the EM Drive to point 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Furthermore, in the up and down test performed by Shawyer, the direction of the force should not have flipped (as reported by Shawyer) when Shawyer flipped the test article upside down, as natural convection always works such that the warmer part is on the bottom, and the air circulates from the warmer bottom part to the cooler top part of the chamber.
Further bad news for explaining the NASA Eagleworks response as natural convection from the warmer EM Drive is that the NASA Eagleworks test show a pulse response rapidly rising in 2 seconds which coincides with the inertial response of the inverted torsional pendulum, and is way too short a time compared with the Fourier dimensionless time based on the thermal diffusivity of the materials involved and the characteristic length. So the initial time-response cannot be explained in terms of thermal natural convection. The speed of heat transfer is restricted by the thermal diffusivity of the material.
.....
I used the Crooke's radiometer as an example. The rotation of the paddles is not from convection.
Considering Crookes radiometer, eliminates both conduction and convection.
Crooke's radiometer is contained in a partial vacuum.
None of the tested devices (NASA Eagleworks, Shawyer of Chinese) to my knowledge were tested in a partial vacuum. To my knowledge Crooke's radiometer does not move under ambient pressure conditions.
...
Reynolds found that if a porous plate is kept hotter on one side than the other, the interactions between gas molecules and the plates are such that gas will flow through from the cooler to the hotter side. The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
end quote
Thanks also to zen-in that provided the picture that motivated the discussion that motivated this insight.
and thanks also to John :)Thanks also to zen-in that provided the picture that motivated the discussion that motivated this insight.
And thanks also to Jack (http://www3.amherst.edu/~rjyanco94/literature/mothergoose/rhymes/thisisthehousethatjackbuilt.html), who built the house that... never mind.
...
Reynolds found that if a porous plate is kept hotter on one side than the other, the interactions between gas molecules and the plates are such that gas will flow through from the cooler to the hotter side. The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
end quote
This is an interesting effect of another nature.
<< The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. >>
How would this work for the EM Drive?
Would we have to posit that the "porous" part is the gap between the flat bases and the surface of the cone?
It is a fact that all the EM Drives that were tested had removable flat bases that were simply torqued into place, they were not welded or bonded without porosity, so certainly one has to admit that there is a gap through which gas molecules can move (at the circumferential gap of the bases instead of the edges of the blade of the radiometer).
...
Crooke's radiometer theory from Wikipedia:
On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
Applying this to the em-drive the large end would be the cold side and the cone section the hot side. Air moves from the cold side to the hot side and generates a tangential force. This force is in the same direction as the theorized em force. (opposite to what I was proposing earlier). I don't think this requires a partial pressure; just a very low friction bearing or torsion pendulum.
Shawyer's up/down thrust plot is not symmetrical. The up plot has a faster rise time. I could speculate that this difference is due to convection. But I don't know enough about how these plots were done.
...
Reynolds found that if a porous plate is kept hotter on one side than the other, the interactions between gas molecules and the plates are such that gas will flow through from the cooler to the hotter side. The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
end quote
This is an interesting effect of another nature.
<< The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. >>
How would this work for the EM Drive?
Would we have to posit that the "porous" part is the gap between the flat bases and the surface of the cone?
It is a fact that all the EM Drives that were tested had removable flat bases that were simply torqued into place, they were not welded or bonded without porosity, so certainly one has to admit that there is a gap through which gas molecules can move (at the circumferential gap of the bases instead of the edges of the blade of the radiometer).
Crooke's radiometer theory from Wikipedia:
On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
Applying this to the em-drive the large end would be the cold side and the cone section the hot side. Air moves from the cold side to the hot side and generates a tangential force. This force is in the same direction as the theorized em force. (opposite to what I was proposing earlier). I don't think this requires a partial pressure; just a very low friction bearing or torsion pendulum.
Shawyer's up/down thrust plot is not symmetrical. The up plot has a faster rise time. I could speculate that this difference is due to convection. But I don't know enough about how these plots were done.
Mmmm. The person that wrote this on Wikipedia literally copied what Prof. John Baez had already explained in his blog several years ago:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html
Since Prof. Baez has been one of the very outspoken critics of Dr. White's Quantum Vacuum Plasma explanation and the NASA Eagleworks tests, I find it interesting, that to my knowledge Prof. Baez has not advanced the Crook radiometer theory as an explanation for the NASA Eagleworks experiments. Maybe this is a question that can be posed to Prof. Baez himself since the explanation quoted from Wikipedia has been taken from Baez himself.
[...Thanks for pointing out that observation.
Prof. Baez's explanation is a lot easier to follow. The Wikipedia authors left a lot out. It turns out the paddles of a Crooke's radiometer do turn as if a force was pushing against the dark side of each paddle. This analogy does not match the results of the em-drive experiment.
...
Reynolds found that if a porous plate is kept hotter on one side than the other, the interactions between gas molecules and the plates are such that gas will flow through from the cooler to the hotter side. The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. The pressure difference causes the vane to move, cold (white) side forward due to the tangential force of the movement of the rarefied gas moving from the colder edge to the hotter edge.
end quote
This is an interesting effect of another nature.
<< The vanes of a typical Crookes radiometer are not porous, but the space past their edges behaves like the pores in Reynolds's plate. On average, the gas molecules move from the cold side toward the hot side whenever the pressure ratio is less than the square root of the (absolute) temperature ratio. >>
How would this work for the EM Drive?
Would we have to posit that the "porous" part is the gap between the flat bases and the surface of the cone?
It is a fact that all the EM Drives that were tested had removable flat bases that were simply torqued into place, they were not welded or bonded without porosity, so certainly one has to admit that there is a gap through which gas molecules can move (at the circumferential gap of the bases instead of the edges of the blade of the radiometer).
......
I'm reasonably confident that Lo is the RF drive wavelength. .......
I think my code is right and the equations are copied fairly but the zero value of Lg2 ~0.052 m, is not close to what we measured and looks to be too small even if the cone tapers all the way to the front end of the cylinder. I am misunderstanding Shawyer's paper is what I think.
..........
I'm reasonably confident that Lo is the RF drive wavelength. .......
I think my code is right and the equations are copied fairly but the zero value of Lg2 ~0.052 m, is not close to what we measured and looks to be too small even if the cone tapers all the way to the front end of the cylinder. I am misunderstanding Shawyer's paper is what I think.
Shawyer's Lambdag is the RF drive wavelength instead of Shawyer's Lambda0 (Lo)....
We now suppose that the beam enters a vacuum-filled waveguide. The waveguide tapers from free-space propagation, with wavelength L0, to dimensions that give a waveguide wavelength of Lg and propagation velocity vg.
Quoting from the linked paper above:That statement says that Lo is the wavelength in free-space propagation and that Lg is the wavelength in the waveguide.QuoteWe now suppose that the beam enters a vacuum-filled waveguide. The waveguide tapers from free-space propagation, with wavelength L0, to dimensions that give a waveguide wavelength of Lg and propagation velocity vg.
This statement led me to think that L0 was the RF drive wavelength. Or maybe L0 is the diameter of the small end?
Lo =0.894 * (RF drive wavelength)
QuoteLo =0.894 * (RF drive wavelength)
Ok. I'll try that.
---------------------------------------
Now, while reading the above linked paper in detail, I found some Flight Thruster dimensions.
Base plate diameter = 265 mm,
Height = 164 mm.
If those dimensions are consistent with the photograph, then we should be able to extract the small end dimension.
---------------------------------------
I plugged in Rodel's value of Lo. It moved the zero crossing slightly, but to the left.
Now, while reading the above linked paper in detail, I found some Flight Thruster dimensions.
Base plate diameter = 265 mm,
Height = 164 mm.
If those dimensions are consistent with the photograph, then we should be able to extract the small end dimension.
What is the "DesignFactor" you compute for smallDiameter=0.17 m, bigDiameter=0.28 m and length=0.345 mAll my dimension estimates were from measuring the Photos. And my design factor equation is not working.
For DesignFactor = 0.844 and bigDiameter=0.28 m and length=0.345 m
I get smallDiameter = 0.1289 m which is much larger than the values you showed, and not so far off from 0.17 m
I like the value you calculate for the small diameter. But can that length be right? I suppose so. Using that length, big diameter and the taper from the photo I calculate small diameter about 0.1 meter. Close enough considering the uncertainty in just exactly where Shawyer is measuring when he tells us the diameter of the thruster and we don't know the wall thickness either. The equations are all related to the internal dimensions while photos show external dimensions and it's all based on assuming we know what Shawyer measured to get the published number.What do you mean by normal form of equation? It looks very normal to me. :)
Oh. Would you post your design factor equation in it's normal form? I'd like to put it into my spreadsheet to see what the curve looks like and to confirm your number.
I mean in the form Design factor = expression.Here is Shayer's DesignFactor in terms of the other variables, notice that it goes to zero when BigDiameter=SmallDiameter
#define Nrec 6
t_data data_in[Nrec] =
{
// w_big w_small lambda Q power force
{"Shawyer (2008) a", 1.0 , 16 , 8 , C/2.45 , 5900 , 850 , 16 },
{"Shawyer (2008) b", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 45000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE011", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.5 , 32000 , 1000 , 214 },
{"Juan (2012) TE012", 1.0 , 28 , 4 , C/2.45 , 50000 , 1000 , 315 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) a", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.933 , 7320 , 16.9 , 0.0912 },
{"Brady et al. (2014) c", 1.0 , 24.75 , 16.5 , C/1.88 , 22000 , 2.6 , 0.0554 },
};
.....
I'm trying to build a case for Brady a with thermal air jet : do we agree on inner volume approx. that of a truncated cone length 0.33 big diameter .4 small diameter .24 (I'm not into a few %) that is approximately 27 litres (27000 cm^3), equivalent to a cube of 30cm side ?
I will do what you ask (unless somebody else wants to do it), but I think that it would be better to wait until we settle on dimensions, there are still issues to be discussed with John (both beams) and aero.
Ok - What dimensions are we currently questioning?All of them. Take a look at my table above. The predictions are closest for the Shayer demo when using the AutoCad drawing from JohnFornaro.
Ok - What dimensions are we currently questioning?All of them. Take a look at my table above. The predictions are closest for the Shayer demo when using the AutoCad drawing from JohnFornaro.
They are off by more than a factor of 2 if we estimate the Shawyer demo small diameter based on the other Fornaro dimensions and the 0.844 designFactor.
John Fornaro based his dimensioning for the NASA Eagleworks on the back beam cross section, and not the front one, so the NASA Eagleworks dimensions should be reviewed.
...I hope your records are better than mine because I don't have lengths recorded, (or the other dimensions, for that matter.)The "search" function of this thread is really awful. Too bad that this thread does not use Google as a search engine
I use the microwave at home and I have never noticed the air getting warm inside it, unlike the air inside my oven. That's why to get a crust on a pie, I use the oven.
The quality factor of an empty microwave oven (30 × 30 × 20 cm^3), with penetration depth of the walls δ≈1μm, is of the order of 10^4, while when we put a glass of water inside the chamber the quality factor is of the order of 10^2. If we put more water in the chamber, the quality factor would be lower and the absorption would be greater.From this publication (http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2008_2009/Absorption_of_microwaves_in_food.pdf) page 8.
.../...
So, the air inside the EM Drive would have to get heated by convection heat transfer, and the same considerations as in the message http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1275630#msg1275630 hold: the copper temperature increases only 1 deg F, and the air needs to get heated by convection from this tiny temperature differential.
The different consideration, is that rather than relying on natural convection circulation, considering the gas law P V=n R T, and since the volume inside the cavity stays the same, as the temperature of the air increases, the pressure increases, and this may produce an air jet at the gap between the bases and the cone. This would have the advantage of explaining the force always being directed axially regarding of orientation of the EM Drive.
However:
1) it still would not explain the impulsive response in 2 seconds (at NASA Eagleworks) since heating of air inside the cavity due to convection heat transfer is much slower than that
and
2) the temperature rise of only 1 deg F is so tiny, that, without doing any calculation my intuition would be that this would produce a very small change in pressure and probably not enough to have the EM Drive act as a jet. On the other hand, the forces measured at NASA Eagleworks are also extremely small (50 microNewtons)
However, although molecules with mirror symmetry like oxygen, and nitrogen have no permanent dipole moments, it is possible to induce a dipole moment by the application of a strong external electric field. This is called polarization and the magnitude of the dipole moment induced is a measure of the polarizability of the molecular species. One would have to calculate whether the Electric Fields could be strong enough to produce polarization of the air molecules inside the cavity to the extent that the microwave can heat the air molecules so that a pressure would be generated enough to produce a jet with the measured microNewton forces. Also whether the air inside the cavity could be humid enough to contain enough water molecules for microwave heating to produce this effect.
Just for giggles I calculated the sensitivity (numerically) of Force to the dimensional parameters. I used Prof. M's new equation on Shawyer a" to calculate force. I used delta X = 2%.
dF/dX dF/dX
for X mN/meter mN/cm
=s 47.523 0.475
=w-big 101.979 1.020
=w-small 215.756 2.158
No real surprise but in general centimeter sized errors in dimensions are noticeable.
Yes, I know that in the design none of the geometry variables are independent. That is, they are all interdependent. What I was showing is the effect of measurement error from the photographs. Those errors can be considered to be more or less independent of each other.Yes, I got that. Actually for the Shawyer design factor I get that the most sensitive parameter is the small diameter, about 2 to 3 times more than the big diameter and the big diameter about 10 times more sensitive than the length which is the least sensitive parameter. Too bad that we were not given the small diameter and we have to estimate, since that is the most sensitive parameter.
Measurement errors are mostly dependent on where we estimate the corners of the 2-d view of the cavity to be, then errors in the reference length be it from the image (Brady) or literature (Shawyer).
...I hope your records are better than mine because I don't have lengths recorded, (or the other dimensions, for that matter.)The "search" function of this thread is really awful. Too bad that this thread does not use Google as a search engine
If this is the only way air inside cavity can be heated then yes.
Seems to me we'd be further along here if the researchers had posted the dimensions of these devices in the first place. As it is, we are taking a 'best guess' approach.
If this is the only way air inside cavity can be heated then yes.
I can vouch for the phenomena that M/W air gets filled with warm water vapor, from hitting the 'potato' button the other day. The air in the M/W was warm and moist, due to potato water that had been evaporated by the influx of M/W energy. The moist air dispersed with the opening of the M/W door.
If this is the only way air inside cavity can be heated then yes.
I ... [hit] the 'potato' button the other day. ...
Do you think that the NASA experimenters left some moist potatoes or something similar inside these cavities by accident?
You give me the material...I work with it ...
...could this be the culprit behind the EM Drive?...
Needed hypothesis : air inside cavity is volumetrically heated at Pow=4W (that is, air gets around 25% of microwave power input). There are hole(s) or crevice(s) between cavity and exterior of device, in the direction of thrust (air jetting...) for a total area of A=1.6 mm².
Needed hypothesis : air inside cavity is volumetrically heated at Pow=4W (that is, air gets around 25% of microwave power input). There are hole(s) or crevice(s) between cavity and exterior of device, in the direction of thrust (air jetting...) for a total area of A=1.6 mm².
I would say that the perimeter of the big end leaks. Not sure how you'd model that leaky connection of the PCB to the copper frustrum flange.
At any rate (rate? get it?) the warm jets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw_sxh89Fos) are coming out radially at right angles to the thrust axis of the thingy.
[Hint from the inappropriate humor department: Listener maximizes humor by familiarity with Brian Eno's album cover art. Linked artwork is not true color, but that's immaterial.]
Needed hypothesis : air inside cavity is volumetrically heated at Pow=4W (that is, air gets around 25% of microwave power input). There are hole(s) or crevice(s) between cavity and exterior of device, in the direction of thrust (air jetting...) for a total area of A=1.6 mm².
I would say that the perimeter of the big end leaks. Not sure how you'd model that leaky connection of the PCB to the copper frustrum flange.
At any rate (rate? get it?) the warm jets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw_sxh89Fos) are coming out radially at right angles to the thrust axis of the thingy.
[Hint from the inappropriate humor department: Listener maximizes humor by familiarity with Brian Eno's album cover art. Linked artwork is not true color, but that's immaterial.]
<< are coming out radially at right angles to the thrust axis of the thingy.>>
A=1.6 mm² leaking could be axial due to the gap between the bolts and the boltholes
1.6 mm² is only 0.0025 square inches or a square having 0.05 inches per side
Look deeply, look at all those bolts. I count 24 bolts, so this would be a gap of only 0.0001 square inches per bolt
It is incorrect to state that only DC fields can produced ionic winds. I don't know whether such misunderstanding comes from getting information from Wikipedia.
AC fields can also produce ionic wind in a variety of ways. For example, the point electrode and ring electrode system is capable of generating electric winds (with velocities of few m/s) for both DC and AC applied voltages. In the AC regime, ions generated within the corona move in the field and migrate a distance before recombining; the net flow of ions away from the corona creates a time-averaged force that drives the steady flows. AC coronas can sustain wind velocities of over 1m/s independent of electrode separation in marked contrast to DC coronas.
Another arrangement in which AC fields can produce ionic wind is dielectric barrier discharge actuators. AC applied across the electrodes through the dielectric produces a variety of electric breakdown phenomena (e.g., corona, streamers, and plasma). Spark breakdown is prevented by the dielectric barrier. The dielectric material needs to be in contact with electrodes such that the electrodes contact each surface of the dielectric.
Transient migration of charged species within AC fields also gives rise to steady electric winds.
In contrast to winds driven by DC fields, AC fields (as in the point electrode and ring electrode system ) generate wind velocities comparable with (or better than) the strongest DC winds for any value of the electrode separation. In the high-frequency AC regime (>1 KHz), the electric force is localized within a region near the tip of the point electrode.
From a fundamental perspective, any type of electric wind (DC or AC) derives from the same basic mechanism whereby a steady flux of ions transfers momentum to the surrounding fluid to drive steady gas flows.
I recall that Paul March wrote that the EMDrives tested at NASA Eagleworks had a temperature that never rose more than 1 deg (F ? or C?) above room temperature.
Anybody recall that statement? Is the temperature measurement in the NASA Eagleworks report? Using search I cannot find it in the text. Is it in the pictures?
I also recall AcesHigh reporting on information elsewhere reporting March's statement he made on this thread regarding temperature. Was that at nextbigfuture? Does anybody still have a link for that?
Anybody in this thread that wants correct information on ionic wind produced by AC, please read for example:It is incorrect to state that only DC fields can produced ionic winds. I don't know whether such misunderstanding comes from getting information from Wikipedia......
AC fields can also produce ionic wind in a variety of ways. For example, the point electrode and ring electrode system is capable of generating electric winds (with velocities of few m/s) for both DC and AC applied voltages. In the AC regime, ions generated within the corona move in the field and migrate a distance before recombining; the net flow of ions away from the corona creates a time-averaged force that drives the steady flows. AC coronas can sustain wind velocities of over 1m/s independent of electrode separation in marked contrast to DC coronas.
Another arrangement in which AC fields can produce ionic wind is dielectric barrier discharge actuators. AC applied across the electrodes through the dielectric produces a variety of electric breakdown phenomena (e.g., corona, streamers, and plasma). Spark breakdown is prevented by the dielectric barrier. The dielectric material needs to be in contact with electrodes such that the electrodes contact each surface of the dielectric.
Transient migration of charged species within AC fields also gives rise to steady electric winds.
In contrast to winds driven by DC fields, AC fields (as in the point electrode and ring electrode system ) generate wind velocities comparable with (or better than) the strongest DC winds for any value of the electrode separation. In the high-frequency AC regime (>1 KHz), the electric force is localized within a region near the tip of the point electrode.
From a fundamental perspective, any type of electric wind (DC or AC) derives from the same basic mechanism whereby a steady flux of ions transfers momentum to the surrounding fluid to drive steady gas flows.
If one were to use an AC high voltage power supply, there wouldn't be an ion wind, just an ion wind oscillation.
...I don't know whether such misunderstanding comes from getting information from Wikipedia. ...
No it isn't because I'm some (as you're [alluding] to) unsophisticated Wikipedia scholar.
Needed hypothesis : air inside cavity is volumetrically heated at Pow=4W (that is, air gets around 25% of microwave power input). There are hole(s) or crevice(s) between cavity and exterior of device, in the direction of thrust (air jetting...) for a total area of A=1.6 mm².
I would say that the perimeter of the big end leaks. Not sure how you'd model that leaky connection of the PCB to the copper frustrum flange.
At any rate (rate? get it?) the warm jets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw_sxh89Fos) are coming out radially at right angles to the thrust axis of the thingy.
[Hint from the inappropriate humor department: Listener maximizes humor by familiarity with Brian Eno's album cover art. Linked artwork is not true color, but that's immaterial.]
<< are coming out radially at right angles to the thrust axis of the thingy.>>
A=1.6 mm² leaking could be axial due to the gap between the bolts and the boltholes
1.6 mm² is only 0.0025 square inches or a square having 0.05 inches per side
Look deeply, look at all those bolts. I count 24 bolts, so this would be a gap of only 0.0001 square inches per bolt
Or the seam that appear on the side of cone (assuming it's not welded). If leaks are not perfectly axial there would still be a net thrust but with a lower efficiency (cosine of the angle relative to axis). The magnitude jet effects can get are pretty close what is to be explained, would be hard to account for less than ideal jet directions... yet it's tantalizingly close. Equations together (will try to summarize that this week-end) can give higher thrust with lower leak area but at the price of higher time constant to reach delta pressure equilibrium (more than 2s).
Also a jet that would come out a seam between two planes perpendicular to axis would have a significant axial component when the flange is asymmetric (for instance the copper part ends when the PCB extends a little bit further...)
In what direction (average) the jets would have to go ? I'm still all confused with the thrust directions.
The big caveat : 4W volumetric heating of (presumably not perfectly dry) air out of 16W microwave power in "empty oven".
I recall that Paul March wrote that the EMDrives tested at NASA Eagleworks had a temperature that never rose more than 1 deg (F ? or C?) above room temperature.
Anybody recall that statement? Is the temperature measurement in the NASA Eagleworks report? Using search I cannot find it in the text. Is it in the pictures?
I also recall AcesHigh reporting on information elsewhere reporting March's statement he made on this thread regarding temperature. Was that at nextbigfuture? Does anybody still have a link for that?
Yes I remember March saying the temperature didn't rise more than 1 degree F. It was F, not C.
Ok. That's well thought out. Now can you explain the lack of thrust from the Brady device without dielectric? Remove the dielectric and there is no thrust. What happened to the heat dissipation?
The other problem that continues to arise is the total momentum .vs. the power dissipated
I recall that Paul March wrote that the EMDrives tested at NASA Eagleworks had a temperature that never rose more than 1 deg (F ? or C?) above room temperature.
Anybody recall that statement? Is the temperature measurement in the NASA Eagleworks report? Using search I cannot find it in the text. Is it in the pictures?
I also recall AcesHigh reporting on information elsewhere reporting March's statement he made on this thread regarding temperature. Was that at nextbigfuture? Does anybody still have a link for that?
Yes I remember March saying the temperature didn't rise more than 1 degree F. It was F, not C.
Presumably it was the temperature of copper walls ? My guess (pursuing ideas of warm jets) is that <5°C rise in cavity's air would have remained unnoticed. Mass of air<<mass of copper.
.....
I used the Crooke's radiometer as an example. The rotation of the paddles is not from convection.
Considering Crookes radiometer, eliminates both conduction and convection.
Crooke's radiometer is contained in a partial vacuum.
None of the tested devices (NASA Eagleworks, Shawyer of Chinese) to my knowledge were tested in a partial vacuum. To my knowledge Crooke's radiometer does not move under ambient pressure conditions.
.../...
The big caveat : 4W volumetric heating of (presumably not perfectly dry) air out of 16W microwave power in "empty oven".
The problem: dependence on Q
As I understand it, to heat the air inside the cavity by microwave heating the air needs to have water molecules (it needs to be humid) because the gases in air are non-polar (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) and hence do not get heated by the microwaves.
But, the more humid the air, the lower the Q. Hence one would expect an inverse relation between measured force and Q: the higher the Q the smaller the force.
However, statistical examination of all the data (Shawyer and NASA Eagleworks) points in the other direction: the higher the Q the greater the measured force.
...I hope your records are better than mine because I don't have lengths recorded, (or the other dimensions, for that matter.)The "search" function of this thread is really awful. Too bad that this thread does not use Google as a search engine
I looked at thrust due to air leaks early on. I discount it just because of the repeatability of the tests across a range of laboratory and thrusters. The inadvertent air leaks are just to consistent across the spectrum of devices for me to consider that as a cause.Need some more help from you in interpreting the information from the image. Is the point that the bolts in this picture are oriented towards the small end, and presuming that there are no holes exposed on the (unseen) big flat end, and therefore that for this particular device there could not be axial air escaping from the boltholes in the direction of the big end, and that all the air from the big end would have had to escape either radially through the circumferential gap between the flat end and the cone or backwards oriented through the backwards oriented bolts?
And we have Brady's example of "no dielectric, no thrust." Of course removing the dielectric could have uncovered air leaks at the small end to precisely counter the leaks in the large end, I guess. But look at the attached device and test data while considering air leaks.
Really, the point is that it is a thruster intended to be flight qualified. It appears to be solidly constructed with gaskets sealing both end plates. Such gaskets would also seal the bolt holes.
A flight qualified device (Nowhere that I can find does it say "space qualified.) would be sealed due to the range of ambient air pressure over the flight regime.
Yes, of course there could be a deliberate hole drilled in the base plate but I can't imagine an accidental hole. And I am not into conspiracy theories between Shawyer, the Chinese, Cannae, and Brady to make hot air thrusters and pawn them off as thrusting from RF wave energy.
We all await the IV&V testing of the new Eagleworks vacuum qualified device. That will either prove or disprove the ion wind and air leak theories.
Add: There is not much more information available about this device. It is one of Shawyer's EM thrusters. Go to emdrive.com and look at the very bottom of the text. There is a link there.
...could this be the culprit behind the EM Drive?...
I'm not a Scot, so I cannae work on that druve,
First attempt to model thrust from cavity's air volumetric heating and jet effect through small aperture. Case studied : Brady a.
Model needs refining (please be patient) but first rough estimates put in the ballpark of 100µN effect during 30s with fast rise of 2s. For now I will give numerical values and derive feasibility from them, in reverse from the set of general equations from which those values derive because I'm still struggling to put some order with all parameters and dependences. Also I want a clean differential equation, takes some time.
Needed hypothesis : air inside cavity is volumetrically heated at Pow=4W (that is, air gets around 25% of microwave power input). There are hole(s) or crevice(s) between cavity and exterior of device, in the direction of thrust (air jetting...) for a total area of A=1.6 mm².
Mind you, volumetric air heating Pow=4W and hole area A=1.6mm² are unknowns, so these values were carefully chosen to get to some magnitude to explain... not the other way around.
Temperatures around 20°C T = 293K
Cavity volume V = 0.027 m^3
Initial mass of air m = rho*V = 1.2 * .027 = .0324 kg (32 grams of air)
Assuming some air will be leaving but only a small part of that, so not significantly alter the heat capacity of the whole. Heat capacity supposed constant.
We put 4W of power into that, with a specific heat of C=1000J/kg/K Tdot = Pow / ( C * m ) = 0.123 K/s
Consider first a short transient period with pressure buildup (like the hole is closed), m constant, p*V=m*Rs*T (Rs around 287 J/kg/K for air)
pdot = m*Rs/V *Tdot = 42 Pa/s (Pascals per second, please remember there is 10^5 Pa in one atm. pressure). So in 2s we would reach 84 Pa more pressure inside vessel than outside. Note that Tdot uses an isobar value of C (1000) while strictly in this phase we would be in isochore conditions (C=720) : that would only lower the time. So in less than 2 seconds 84 Pa differential. Pd = 84 Pa.
This is the transient. At this level of pressure differential the rate of air escaping through the hole becomes important enough that this pressure will be kept constant while the temperature continues to rise (why I choose isobar heat capacity overall) :
The mass flow through aperture mdot = Cf A sqrt(2 rho Pd) where Cf is a flow coefficient depending on geometry and I understand is around 0.6 for rough holes.
This is from orifice plate article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orifice_plate) (repress any second thought here), I took the most simplified forms assuming incompressible flow (pressure differential / absolute pressure < 1/1000 so I guess this is a good first approximation). On this chapter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orifice_plate#Incompressible_flow), equation (2).
=> mdot = 1.36 10^-5 kg/s of air expelled through the 1.6 mm² hole(s).
This is a volume flow of mdot/rho = 1.13 10^-5 m^3/s
Speed of ejection is volume flow divided by hole section : v = 7.1 m/s
Clearly not sonic or supersonic.
The reaction force imparted (thrust) = mdot * v = 9.65 10^-5
Thrust = 96 µN
Reported by Brady a : 91.2 µN
After 30 seconds of this "steady state" of constant rate of heating and expelling air :
T would be 3.7 ° above initial conditions
Mass of air expelled 0.41 g (a bit more than 1% of initial air mass of 32g)
Sanity check on total momentum :
From momentum expelled by jet : 0.41e-3 kg * 7.1 m/s = 2.9e-3 kg m/s
From required thrust during 30s : 96e-6 N * 30 s = 2.9e-3 kg m/s
When power off, Tdot falls to 0, sharp fall to 0 thrust ( differential pressure is quickly released, pressure equilibrium restored with same time constant as rise time < 2s). Conduction slowly release the heat of gas through the (colder) copper walls with a long time constant. No visible effect of contracting gas sucking air through the hole(s) when restoring T equilibrium.
Thank you for your patience.
Having said that, aero makes very good points concerning <<A flight qualified device (Nowhere that I can find does it say "space qualified.) would be sealed due to the range of ambient air pressure over the flight regime.>>
and that <<the point is that it is a thruster intended to be flight qualified. It appears to be solidly constructed with gaskets sealing both end plates. Such gaskets would also seal the bolt holes. >>
yes, if the gasket is compliant enough under stress produced by the torqued bolts, it should seal the whole perimeter. The only other escape would be between the threaded bolts and the threaded holes (if threads were used) which are of course not gasketed. Then frobnicat would need to posit a means for air to make it to the boltholes and to have air still be able to escape between the threaded holes and the bolts (this would require very rough surfaces on the bolt and hole threads, and the gaps would be extremely small).
Something we've been overlooking is the age of the devices we have been considering from Shawyer. His demonstrator EM thruster program leading to the device that we are looking at was started in 2003, 11 years ago. He has national government money and private investor money to forward his research. I don't know the date that the flight thruster test program was completed, but I do know that in 2010 he published a photo of his follow-on device, a superconducting EM thruster, photo attached. That was 4 years ago.
There is just to much money being spent on these devices for the test results to be bogus or caused by some bogus effect and not be detected. And if such bogus effect was detected then 4 years is just to long to keep it a secret, it would leak to the news and make a big splash in the headlines. JMO
Can the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator?
Also the latest paper by Shawyer contains no actual data, it is just another quick and dirty powerpoint type of presentation designed to stir hearts and minds. I smell a rat in all this. This all ties into why I give much more credence to the Nasa conference paper than other sources. The Nasa papers have no conflict of interest. Shawyer is trying to sell me a cow, but where's the beef!??!] Also the latest paper by Shawyer contains no actual data, it is just another quick and dirty powerpoint type of presentation designed to stir hearts and minds. I smell a rat in all this. This all ties into why I give much more credence to the Nasa conference paper than other sources. The Nasa papers have no conflict of interest. Shawyer is trying to sell me a cow, but where's the beef!??!
There is just to much money being spent on these devices for the test results to be bogus or caused by some bogus effect and not be detected.I would argue the opposite. With this kind of money spent, why has the science not been settled and why is there no reliable technology that everyone can agree on? I think this is all wishful thinking. Certainly Shawyer's explanation for how the thing should produce thrust is completely wrong, and he's had 11 years to make it right. How is it he is still championing this mishandling of the "group velocity" concept? Clearly demonstrates he's off in pathological science land--I would not trust anything one hears from someone so committed to reasoning he knows must be flawed.
There is just to much money being spent on these devices for the test results to be bogus or caused by some bogus effect and not be detected.I would argue the opposite. With this kind of money spent, why has the science not been settled and why is there no reliable technology that everyone can agree on? I think this is all wishful thinking. Certainly Shawyer's explanation for how the thing should produce thrust is completely wrong, and he's had 11 years to make it right. How is it he is still championing this mishandling of the "group velocity" concept? Clearly demonstrates he's off in pathological science land--I would not trust anything one hears from someone so committed to reasoning he knows must be flawed.
What's shocking to me is how this thread made it even past page 2. This is so clearly in violation of known physical laws and it has to be that these experimenters botched the entire thing, failing to take precautions that an undergraduate would be mindful of.
How about we spend all of this energy on more productive and realizable technologies, not fantasy devices that are so clearly in breach of conservation laws and require silly hokum such as "quantum vacuum plasma" and a terrible experiment procedure to even be somewhat plausible?
As I understand it, to heat the air inside the cavity by microwave heating the air needs to have water molecules (it needs to be humid) because the gases in air are non-polar (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) and hence do not get heated by the microwaves.
Check whether the temperature and humidity are maintained in a recommended comfort range (temperature: 68 to 78 degrees and relative humidity: 30% to 60%)
I really feel like a Faraday without Maxwell.
It is true that Shawyer had reduced or eliminated the publication of test results for his different devices.
As I understand it, to heat the air inside the cavity by microwave heating the air needs to have water molecules (it needs to be humid) because the gases in air are non-polar (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) and hence do not get heated by the microwaves.
I don't recall that ambient humidity was mentioned in any of the experimental protocols.
This OSHA document recommends a relative humidity of 30% to 60% on p7:Quote from: OSHACheck whether the temperature and humidity are maintained in a recommended comfort range (temperature: 68 to 78 degrees and relative humidity: 30% to 60%)
If the lab followed these recommendations, then there should be a certain amount of moisture in the ambient air of the cavity.
As to whether the "warm jets" are coming out of the seam or boltholes, good luck modeling where all those random directions and random holes are!
Whatever that M/W effect is on the water vapor in the cavity, it can't amount to much, but I guess it points again to the desireability of testing in vacuum.
What's shocking to me is how this thread made it even past page 2. This is so clearly in violation of known physical laws and it has to be that these experimenters botched the entire thing, failing to take precautions that an undergraduate would be mindful of.
How about we spend all of this energy on more productive and realizable technologies, not fantasy devices that are so clearly in breach of conservation laws and require silly hokum such as "quantum vacuum plasma" and a terrible experiment procedure to even be somewhat plausible?
Testing rapidly in an ambient vacuum without waiting until the cavity itself is free of air would not be enough.
The air that needs to be humid is the one inside the cavity. Hence before the test is conducted the researchers must make sure that the medium inside the cavity itself is at a vacuum.
I dunno. 'Coz he doesn't want to make it too easy?
Stuff like this is bothersome and worse than annoying.
Also, can somebody tell me how you get momentum out of group velocity?
'Cuz I thought there was no relationship whatsoever between the two.
I think it is clear the experimentalists (at Nasa at least) are professionals. I'm not going to sell these men and women short. Eagleworks has been at it for several years and they have lessons learned under their belt before the EMdrive test campaigns. (not conjecture, look for yourself) At the very least they have personal and organizational reputations to protect.....and they work for a NASA. I have no reason not to respect NASA. Even with the screw ups over the years at NASA, the AARs have been completely pitch perfect on par scientific and analytical......eg. No bs.
I can tell you that it is not acceptable to release a conference paper without following up (they have to know this) with an actual study asap. They concluded the conference paper with a way forward to more studies.
WEll, I gotta say, I'm learning a lot about people, am getting practice in scientific rhetoric, and learning somewhat less math than French, but hey.
Best I can tell, is that the mhe math whiz bangs here think that something could be happening, and are snapping their synapses over just what could be happening that is consistent with the reported results.
Although I'm with you on the sloppy experimental protocols, even by amateur standards.
Supergravity, what is your opinion of the Woodward effect ? ( see
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414273515&sr=8-1&keywords=james+woodward+wormholes and
http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward and
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/)
(since you are discussing the topic ofresearching outlandish concepts like warp drives)
Si vous voulez apprendre la physique, je recommande fortement de ne pas l'apprentissage basé sur les spéculations des ingénieurs ennuyer.
... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...There is this about Cannae's superconducting test
On January 13, 2011, Figure 1 was generated by sending 10.5 watt power pulses of 1047.335 MHz RF phase-locked power forward to the POC resonating cavity located in the experimental apparatus. The POC cavity is operated in the TM010 mode. Figure 1 shows 6 dips in the compressive force on the load cells. These 6 dips in the load-cell outputs coincide with the 10.5 watt power pulses sent into the cavity from the signal-generation circuit. Figure 1 also shows 2 positive peaks in the voltage signal coming from the load cells. These positive peaks resulted from placing a 2-gram calibrated weight onto the support arm that supports the POC cavity and vacuum tubing. Figure 1 was generated 65 minutes after bringing the pressure over the liquid helium bath up to atmospheric pressure from a pump-down pressure of 50 Torre. The 6 dips in voltage in Figure 1 correspond to a reduction in compressive force on the load cells of 8-10 mN.
The upward drift of the load-cell voltage output of Figure 1 occurred with and without power being sent to the POC cavity. Moisture condensation on the cold equipment and signal drift (within specifications) of the load cells, contributed to the drift of the voltage output. The frequency of the drift in load-cell output is much lower than the frequency of the power pulses sent into the cavity and the calibration pulses. The dips in load-cell voltage output during power-pulse cycles is clearly visible against the background signal drift.
... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...There is this about Cannae's superconducting test
http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results
This is what we have to work with
This is what we have to work with
Do we have to ?
Should we ?
Can we?
Oui ?
Can the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator?
I like where you're going with this, but I can't see how this ...applies ... because of the penetrating bolt through the whole assembly of the test device, which are conductive. I dismissed them because of this. ..
Sorry, This is not in response to your post, but rather to the top photo you attached.Can the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator?
I like where you're going with this, but I can't see how this ...applies ... because of the penetrating bolt through the whole assembly of the test device, which are conductive. I dismissed them because of this. ..
How can we possibly know the electrical conductivity of the bolts they used to attach the base plates to the copper cone? Is there information about the type of bolts that were used ?
And the bolts are not going through the copper cone but they thread through to flanges. How are the flanges themselves made and/or attached to the cone?
....I modeled the nonlinear coupled equations of motion (obtained from solving the Lagrangian) of the inverted torsional pendulum with Mathematica.
> Tau=2s (really uncertain, typical rise time, could be much lower)
....
....
From the first photo that you attached, it looks to me like the horizontal 1 1/2 inch beam on the far side of the thruster, and the end of the lower 1 1/2 inch beam on the near side of the thruster are just about equidistant from the center of the base plate of the thruster. Measuring distance perpendicular to the axis of the cone, that is. Setting our reference length to the average measured 1 1/2 inches should give a better reference than using one or the other.
... Before embarking onto Shawyer's devices leaks (BTW can someone answer to this apparently simple question : has superconducting EMdrive been tested yes or no ? ...There is this about Cannae's superconducting test
http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-resultsQuoteOn January 13, 2011, Figure 1 was generated by sending 10.5 watt power pulses of 1047.335 MHz RF phase-locked power forward to the POC resonating cavity located in the experimental apparatus. The POC cavity is operated in the TM010 mode. Figure 1 shows 6 dips in the compressive force on the load cells. These 6 dips in the load-cell outputs coincide with the 10.5 watt power pulses sent into the cavity from the signal-generation circuit. Figure 1 also shows 2 positive peaks in the voltage signal coming from the load cells. These positive peaks resulted from placing a 2-gram calibrated weight onto the support arm that supports the POC cavity and vacuum tubing. Figure 1 was generated 65 minutes after bringing the pressure over the liquid helium bath up to atmospheric pressure from a pump-down pressure of 50 Torre. The 6 dips in voltage in Figure 1 correspond to a reduction in compressive force on the load cells of 8-10 mN.
The upward drift of the load-cell voltage output of Figure 1 occurred with and without power being sent to the POC cavity. Moisture condensation on the cold equipment and signal drift (within specifications) of the load cells, contributed to the drift of the voltage output. The frequency of the drift in load-cell output is much lower than the frequency of the power pulses sent into the cavity and the calibration pulses. The dips in load-cell voltage output during power-pulse cycles is clearly visible against the background signal drift.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121102082714im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/test_run2.gif)
Can anyone please provide Dr. White's equation to predict the thrust force from his electron-positron virtual particle quantum vacuum theory?
The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.
QuoteCan anyone please provide Dr. White's equation to predict the thrust force from his electron-positron virtual particle quantum vacuum theory?
Does this help? From Doctor White, back in 2007. Can't make heads or tails out of it:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..987W
Abstract:QuoteThe intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.
The meat of the article runs $28, though.
WEll, I gotta say, I'm learning a lot about people, am getting practice in scientific rhetoric, and learning somewhat less math than French, but hey.
Best I can tell, is that the mhe math whiz bangs here think that something could be happening, and are snapping their synapses over just what could be happening that is consistent with the reported results.
Although I'm with you on the sloppy experimental protocols, even by amateur standards.
I guess it's all relative, then. While I'm sure the people here are no less brilliant when it comes to matters of applied science and technologies, they really are (for the most part) clueless when it comes to matters of fundamental physics and advanced mathematics from what I've seen. Just skimming this thread confirms my suspicion. Mostly algebraic manipulations of rather simple Newtonian equations and some differential calculus sprinkled in, nothing you wouldn't see in a first year math class. Where are the action principles? Or how about the symmetry arguments that would then trivially lead to the conservation laws via Noether's theorem? And for those pushing the quantum vacuum plasma "model", what is the form of the quantum fields (and these have to be there) in your model? Where are the path-integrals that should explain the interactions of those fields? I would be more impressed by such a model even if its path integrals diverged. I don't even see math that is appropriate for quantum mechanics in the low-energy limit, such as density functional theory, fourier transforms, abstract linear algebra, etc.
If you want to learn physics, I strongly recommend not learning based on the speculations of bored engineers. When it comes to everything else on this forum, these are generally the perfect people to learn from. But with these fringe topics, I humbly believe you're better off building your physical intuition from the classic textbooks so then you would at least be armed with the correct intuition to sift between the speculatively plausible and the outright nonsensical.
Can the polymer gasket between the base plate and the cone act as a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) actuator?
I like where you're going with this, but I can't see how this ...applies ... because of the penetrating bolt through the whole assembly of the test device, which are conductive. I dismissed them because of this. ..
How can we possibly know the electrical conductivity of the bolts they used to attach the base plates to the copper cone? Is there information about the type of bolts that were used ?
And the bolts are not going through the copper cone but they thread through to flanges. How are the flanges themselves made and/or attached to the cone?
According to Dr. White's "quantum vacuum plasma" formulation, there would be no action in the direction that the thrust forces were measured: the (vertical) axial direction of the truncated cone.
Also, can somebody tell me how you get momentum out of group velocity?
'Cuz I thought there was no relationship whatsoever between the two.
Yes certainly, that is easy to show. ...
momentum = groupveloctiy * mass
....I modeled the nonlinear coupled equations of motion (obtained from solving the Lagrangian) of the inverted torsional pendulum with Mathematica.
> Tau=2s (really uncertain, typical rise time, could be much lower)
....
The 2 seconds rise is purely due to the inertial response of the equations of motion to an impulsive rectangular pulse. There is no doubt about it. It is due purely to the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the pendulum. The 2 sec rise is not due to a time-dependent-loading that takes 2 sec to reach full load.
So what one needs to find is an experimental artifact that acts like an instantaneous (within the time scale), impulsive pulse. Not one that takes 2 sec to reach full load. If the loading function itself would take 2 seconds to reach full load, the response (due to the pendulum equations of motion) would be taking longer than 2 sec.
... the whole debacle with CERN and the superluminal neutrinos...
people here are ... clueless when it comes to matters of fundamental physics and advanced mathematics from what I've seen.
...nothing you wouldn't see in a first year math class...
...
I don't put in doubt your model but from what I see from "anomalous thrust... (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf)" Brady page 15 fig. 19 the underdamped ringing could easily blur the distinction between a step excitation and a more gentle first order rise with time constant about 1s. For what we see with the rectangular pulses of calibration (dips in fig 19, also fig 20 and fig 21 at better scales) the first overshoot is typically bigger (deviation from later averaged drifting baseline response during the pulse) than the second crest 2s later (the other side of the later average). This is far from obvious with the step excitations of the thruster, quite the contrary it appears the first crest /\ top is closer (to the overall pulse response baseline) than the second crest \/ bottom. The same remarks apply for the fall : first ringing (overshoot) has bigger relative magnitude (to the following level) than the second for calibration pulses, not for thruster pulses.
Those are just words but really I would be surprised if the thrust excitation giving such response were really instantaneous. A first order rate effect with time constant 1 would be at 63% its later level after 1s, 86% after 2s (first ringing overshoot), 98% after 4s (second ringing crest). How would you exclude such a 1s (or even 2s) rise time from those experimental diagrams, have you scrapped the data from the images and run that through a deconvolution filter of some sort ? Short of that I remain sceptical of the inevitability to exclude quite not instantaneous, around 1s rise/fall time, candidate effects.
Is it possible to include attached (uploaded) pictures in the body of a post ?
Those are just words but really I would be surprised if the thrust excitation giving such response were really instantaneous.
This is far from obvious with the step excitations of the thruster, quite the contrary it appears the first crest /\ top is closer (to the overall pulse response baseline) than the second crest \/ bottom. The same remarks apply for the fall : first ringing (overshoot) has bigger relative magnitude (to the following level) than the second for calibration pulses, not for thruster pulsesYes, the measured force (whatever its origiin) is not a pure step. The measured force vs time however, as you know, should not be interpreted as being a replica of the thruster excitation. Due to the complicated measuring system (an inverted torsional pendulum with nonlinear coupling between swinging and torsion) there are many natural modes of resonance and if the thruster response instead of being a pure step has different frequencies of excitation, the measured response will amplify the frequencies that are near the natural frequencies (some of them parasitic) of the inverted pendulum.
How would you exclude such a 1s (or even 2s) rise time from those experimental diagrams, have you scrapped the data from the images and run that through a deconvolution filter of some sort ?
I can't begin to guess how many pages were about symmetries and conservation laws. Make sure you read before you criticize the group. How about you bring some new insight to the table?
http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.htmlYes neat video. Besides it being an interesting demonstration (we agree on that), do you see here something that could throw a light into the reason for the measured thrust in the EM Drives?
Neat
...
Start at 1:25
Or how about a constructive contribution rather than subjective wordy opinions, a contribution showing what is meant by "higher math" by actually analyzing with "higher math" the EM Drives as an experimental artifact, using what is considered to be non-first year math class? (the example given of a Fourier transform as being such "higher math" implies an assumption of ergodicity and stationarity, both of which are not met by many physical processes. )people here are ... clueless when it comes to matters of fundamental physics and advanced mathematics from what I've seen.
How about a bit more explanation for us clueless dummies, rather than casual dismissal with blatantly obvious oversimplifications? Like:Quote from: SuperGenius...nothing you wouldn't see in a first year math class...
Obviously you're one of those reasonably educated (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1255287#msg1255287) individuals, and those of us who use the oracle aren't?
Besides, I'm a better dancer than you are anyhow. sheesh.
You asked for an example. I gave you an example where momentum = groupvelocity *mass, exactly.Also, can somebody tell me how you get momentum out of group velocity?
'Cuz I thought there was no relationship whatsoever between the two.
Yes certainly, that is easy to show. ...
Who does the good doctor think I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_and_Dumber) am? I use the oracle for all my entertainment needs!
Of course, the doc hisself could use a dictionary. Note his "careful words":Quote from: Don't even askmomentum = groupveloctiy * mass
Check the oracle! Dey ain't no such thing as "veloctiy". sheesh.
But on the serious side, the oracle is the only reference tool I have at hand.
The group velocity of a wave is the velocity with which the overall shape of the waves' amplitudes — known as the modulation or envelope of the wave — propagates through space. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity)
My understanding is that you can't multiply this by mass and get any movement of the mass. Movement of mass implying some kind of velocity with an associated momentum.
Primitive man try for half hour to get it. Me not get it.
http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.htmlYes neat video. Besides it being an interesting demonstration (we agree on that), do you see here something that could throw a light into the reason for the measured thrust in the EM Drives?
Neat
...
Start at 1:25
,,,,,
You asked for an example. I gave you an example where momentum = groupvelocity *mass, exactly.
The Wikipedia article defines the group velocity in exactly the same way that I defined it: as the partial derivative of the angular frequency with respect to the wavenumber. See everything that the wikipedia article states under definition.
The relationship of group velocity to phase velocity depends on the dispersion relation.
Due to dispersion, wave velocity is not uniquely defined, giving rise to the distinction of phase velocity and group velocity when the dispersion relation is not linear.
I don't like the fact that people that don't identify themselves with their real name, but instead use monickers, can constantly write and modify Wikipedia articles, at their will, but if you like to use use it, here is the article on Wikipedia on dispersion that applies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
or, better, this lecture (video): http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03-physics-iii-vibrations-and-waves-fall-2004/video-lectures/lecture-12/
physical demonstration starting approximately at 1:10
The MIT Prof. (Lewin) discusses cut-off frequency, nonlinear dispersion, group velocity and a lot of the stuff we are discussing. The lecture is at an introductory level (the third Physics course for undergraduates).
The value of c, the speed of light, should be taken to be the group velocity of light in whatever material fills the waveguide
The wave equations are also valid below the cutoff frequency, where the longitudinal wave number is imaginary. In this case, the field decays exponentially along the waveguide axis and the wave is thus evanescent.
QuoteThose are just words but really I would be surprised if the thrust excitation giving such response were really instantaneous.
Of course, that's why I wrote <<So what one needs to find is an experimental artifact that acts like an instantaneous (within the time scale>> resolution. We can only tell how impulsive the response is from the graph. From measuring the graph, to me this is about within ~0.2 seconds, so meet me somewhere in-between (I think that 1 sec to 2 sec is too much, as we can discriminate 1 sec to 2 sec from the graph).
QuoteThis is far from obvious with the step excitations of the thruster, quite the contrary it appears the first crest /\ top is closer (to the overall pulse response baseline) than the second crest \/ bottom. The same remarks apply for the fall : first ringing (overshoot) has bigger relative magnitude (to the following level) than the second for calibration pulses, not for thruster pulsesYes, the measured force (whatever its origiin) is not a pure step. The measured force vs time however, as you know, should not be interpreted as being a replica of the thruster excitation. Due to the complicated measuring system (an inverted torsional pendulum with nonlinear coupling between swinging and torsion) there are many natural modes of resonance and if the thruster response instead of being a pure step has different frequencies of excitation, the measured response will amplify the frequencies that are near the natural frequencies (some of them parasitic) of the inverted pendulum.
QuoteHow would you exclude such a 1s (or even 2s) rise time from those experimental diagrams, have you scrapped the data from the images and run that through a deconvolution filter of some sort ?
Yes, actually, I was planning to do that. If we can come up with a proposed input excitation (whether an artifact or a real thrust) it would be easy for me to input it in Mathematica and see how it compares with the actual response.
This is an imperfect analogy, but similar argumentation as you very well noticed the InputPower^2 response of the model vs the InputPower^1 actual response
... The question is the time behaviour of the thrust output of the device from this rectangular power inputHere it looks to me that we were referring to different things. The inverted torsional pendulum has a time response to an (instantaneous) impulsive load of 2s, not 1s
Not clear to me, can we clarify terminology ?It's great that you realize that we are referring to different quantities and the best way to resolve this is to define what we mean. Here I was saying (admittedly in less than perfect language) that if Fb(t) instead of being an impulse has a significant delay-to-reach-steady-state (time-dependent rise), then Obs(t) will have a response longer than 2 sec. From my side I'm a black box that if given Fb(t) as an input, I can give you Obs(t) as an output.
P(t) : Microwave power input to the thruster (instantaneous compared to time scales, rectangular pulse)
F(t) : thrust output of the thruster (the interesting magnitude vs time shape, perfect steps or not ?)
Fb(t) : excitation input of the balance (almost the same as F, but with added DC power parasitic term )
Obs(t) : Measure output of the balance (as displacement, with natural frequencies, underdamped...)
"if the thruster response instead of being a pure step..." you are referring to F ?
Input excitation of balance, that is Fb ?It's great working with you. That's exactly what I needed.
Ok, could we try with 3 easy ones :
- Pure rectangle, 30 seconds
Fb(t) = cst for 0<t<30
Fb(t) = 0 otherwise
- "charge/discharge" rectangle : first order tau=1s rise and decay
Fb(t)=0 for t<0
Fb(t)=cst*(1-exp(-t/1)) for 0<t<30
Fb(t)=cst*exp(-(t-30)/1) for 30<t
- "charge/discharge" rectangle : first order tau=2s rise and decay
Fb(t)=0 for t<0
Fb(t)=cst*(1-exp(-t/2)) for 0<t<30
Fb(t)=cst*exp(-(t-30)/2) for 30<t
cst = target constant amplitude (say 80µN)
What is experimental data resembling most ?
When operated with a TM010 EM wave, the QDrive POC cavity generates a linear net imbalance of Lorentz forces exerted on the cavity. FEM numerical predictions for net unbalanced Lorentz force on the POC cavity is within 40% of experimental results. Variations between experimental results and numerical method predictions are within the margin of error based on limitations of the experimental measurements of Cavity Q. EM field energy in the POC cavity during experimental runs was less than 3% of design maximum. Field energy levels in the experiment limit correlations between numerical method predictions and experimental results.
Conclusion from the 'experimental results' section of the Cannae drive page.QuoteWhen operated with a TM010 EM wave, the QDrive POC cavity generates a linear net imbalance of Lorentz forces exerted on the cavity. FEM numerical predictions for net unbalanced Lorentz force on the POC cavity is within 40% of experimental results. Variations between experimental results and numerical method predictions are within the margin of error based on limitations of the experimental measurements of Cavity Q. EM field energy in the POC cavity during experimental runs was less than 3% of design maximum. Field energy levels in the experiment limit correlations between numerical method predictions and experimental results.
'...linear net imbalance of Lorentz forces?' Does this mean 'thrust?'
'...less than 3% of design maximum?' Does this mean he could have created an imbalance on the order of 33 times greater than what was measured?
Apart from that, I note a lot of pages under construction on that site...including some very interesting ones.
You asked for an example. I gave you an example where momentum = groupvelocity *mass, exactly.
The Wikipedia article defines the group velocity in exactly the same way that I defined it...
You asked for an example. I gave you an example where momentum = groupvelocity *mass, exactly.
The Wikipedia article defines the group velocity in exactly the same way that I defined it...
I was noticing the similarity between your explanation and that of the oracle, which caused a bit of head scratching at your seeming dismissal of the oracle. I need to study a bit more, my good troglodite.
As always, appreciate your pedagology. That chart is most excellent!
If they get a "net imbalance of Lorentz forces" it means that they get thrust, yes, but it also means to me that the Finite Element problem was not well posed if they are dealing with classical physics (Maxwell's equations and equations or equations of motion from a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian).
the NASA Eagleworks tests show a pulse response rapidly rising in 2 seconds which coincides with the inertial response of the inverted torsional pendulum
Very interesting. So how much thrust would be calculated for a right circular cylinder filled half way with a dielectric?Is this in reference to Thinker X's last message?
Choose your own dielectric constant and don't worry about can length. The can has a Q value of 50,000 which seems easy.
New post by Dr.McCulloch, using two McCulloch formulas:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-updated-table.html
incorporating the superconducting Cannae test
http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/design
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC_fig_1.gif)
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC_fig_2.gif)
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC.fig3.jpg)
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC_design_figure42.jpg)
This device is fictional. No one would build a dewar this way.
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
doesn´t ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
You're here referring to Woodward's use of the Wheeler Feynman Absorber theory in his M-E theory. There's no virtual particle that mediates the transfer in either Absorber theory nor in Woodward's theory. It's a field phenomena that usually is taken only in its forward in time sense, but Wheeler and Feynman noted that this is an arbitrary choice, and used both in the absorber theory.The trouble is, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, even those who admit virtual particles as something other than a cheezy accounting measure (the vast minority of real physicists) know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it. It would be good to look at that in more detail, but certainly the bigger problem with this is that if it is correct, General Relativity and Einstein's Equivalence Principle that GR relies upon, indeed the entire principle of relativity are all incorrect! We have so much data, that these three are correct that it is on its face, silly to entertain physics like this. One has to ask, "where do you draw the line" between what is a plausible explanation and what is not?
Does this "theory", explain to us how we have the findings of GR over the decades? Does it answer how we can have so much experimental validation of Einstein's theories and yet they are wrong?
Ron, I have no idea what I am talking about here, so please, correct me (because I know there will be reasoning errors here, but I am posting anyway exactly to see your answer so I can better understand what´s going on):
"know that virtual particles have to be exceedingly short lived, so positing them traversing between an accelerated frame and the horizon is pretty silly on the face of it"
doesn´t ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
if that's the case with gravity waves (or whatever else you are going to correct me), can´t a similar principle go on with these virtual particles?
That's precisely the kind of question we philosophers of science like to see. :-)doesn´t ME/Woodward Theory posit gravity waves or particles, whatever, flying backwards in time, so as to answer the question of inertia being caused by the mass of the distant universe acting instantly on anything?
That's a pretty bold concept. I'm not saying it's wrong, but where is the experimental evidence that they are correct?
Seriously, we have numerical comparisons of Shawyer's and McCulloch's predictions with experiments. . .I'm sure you're well meaning in this line of reasoning, but I would just point out to you, as I have to Dr. White on a dozen similar occasions, that this is mere rhetoric and is unhelpful in the extreme in doing science. Which supposed "prediction" is closest to the claims is irrelevant when it comes to which is likely correct, and thinking this way leads people into thinking errors that endure over time. This is pure fallacy. It is however worse, as it is fallacy mixed with lack of integrity, when people are claiming to be making "predictions' when in fact these come AFTER THE DATA. When these calculations come after the data, they are most assuredly NOT predictions, which is just precisely what we have here.
Yes well, I understand your point but it remains that your practical application is incorrect. It does not matter which explanation is closest to the observed value, especially when the calculations come after the data is received. This is simple scientific method any engineer should be aware of. How close a wrong answer is to the observed value forms no correlation whatsoever with any probability of its veracity, and asking people to think this way is inviting them to form a thinking error. I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this error because Dr. White has on many occasions compare his model to others in this way, inviting people to form this invalid conclusion. And it is easy to see how this happens. Fallacies are tricky things.
The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.
So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.
Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample. Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some. With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid. The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them. It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable. And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst. There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.
I'm not suggesting Sonny fabricated this data. In fact though I cannot say he would never do such a thing, I know Paul March would not. That's not the issue. The issue is, that with so few data points, with so much error demonstrated, and no reason to draw a line through the spread of the data the way one hopes they're justified to do ONLY when one has a statistically valid sample, there is no way to get to there from here. You can't apply these excellent tools Dr. Rodel has been using and expect a real answer when you haven't identified possible sources of error, looked at the error bars, formulated why any particular model is appropriate to the data or not, etc.Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample. Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some. With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid. The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them. It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable. And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst. There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
Excellent. Thanks Ron.I'm not suggesting Sonny fabricated this data. In fact though I cannot say he would never do such a thing, I know Paul March would not. That's not the issue. The issue is, that with so few data points, with so much error demonstrated, and no reason to draw a line through the spread of the data the way one hopes they're justified to do ONLY when one has a statistically valid sample, there is no way to get to there from here. You can't apply these excellent tools Dr. Rodel has been using and expect a real answer when you haven't identified possible sources of error, looked at the error bars, formulated why any particular model is appropriate to the data or not, etc.Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample. Just look at the error bars had someone chosen to make some. With what was it, just 9 data points? one forms a conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be statistically valid. The error in the readings is far more than the post-dictions that are being compared to them. It could be one of the nine readings is correct and the others are marred by error, or it could be none of them is correct and all of the data reflects some hidden or loose variable. And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, and intentionally mislead at worst. There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
Just take one example from Eagle. The QVF model predicts thrust from DC, and there has been no thrust observed with DC to date. The QVF model predicted a warp signature from the interferometry experiments and none was observed. I can therefore see no experimental reasons to suppose the QVF conjecture is even in the running as an explanation for this thrust. So how can we compare it quantitatively, after the fact of the data? We simply cannot. Sometimes that's what science says, "I don't know and I'm not going to guess.".
....Not arguing with that. Take a look at this message : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1276802#msg1276802 where I show that Dr. White's published formulation has his "Quantum Vacuum Plasma" force directed radially rather than axially (hence he has the predicted QV force perpendicular to the measured force vector).
Just take one example from Eagle. The QVF model predicts thrust from DC, and there has been no thrust observed with DC to date. The QVF model predicted a warp signature from the interferometry experiments and none was observed. I can therefore see no experimental reasons to suppose the QVF conjecture is even in the running as an explanation for this thrust. ...
Take a look at this message : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1276802#msg1276802 where I show that Dr. White's published formulation has his "Quantum Vacuum Plasma" force directed radially rather than axially (hence he has the predicted QV force perpendicular to the measured force vector).
I suggest we should concentrate on the experiments, math and physics, and any discussions be strictly restricted to what are the consequences of his/her published theories but never on the person itself.
1) I think we should not consider that the data was deliberately "made up", but rather the result of experimentation problems due to the fact that the resonant response is an extremely nonlinear function of frequency.I suggest we should concentrate on the experiments, math and physics, and any discussions be strictly restricted to what are the consequences of his/her published theories but never on the person itself.
How do you separate the two, without discarding the conversation topic, when one's hypothesis on the origins of the data is "they're making it up?"
Hello NSF posters. I have been following this forum and topic since some time ago. Great forum and discussions!Welcome good sir!
I just wanted to add that I also prefer if the discussion sticks to the scientific facts and theories proving or disproving the claims made by H. White. Telling how horrible a person Harold White really is doesn't add anything new, and it's even damaging to clarifying the facts, because it simply says: "he's a quack! don't discuss him".
Also, I don't have direct evidence of how a horrible person he really is, except the word of the wronged/offended persons.
I assume they talk in good faith, but again, I also assume H. White and his co-author do.
Hello NSF posters. I have been following this forum and topic since some time ago. Great forum and discussions!
I just wanted to add that I also prefer if the discussion sticks to the scientific facts and theories proving or disproving the claims made by H. White. Telling how horrible a person Harold White really is doesn't add anything new, and it's even damaging to clarifying the facts, because it simply says: "he's a quack! don't discuss him".
Also, I don't have direct evidence of how a horrible person he really is, except the word of the wronged/offended persons.
I assume they talk in good faith, but again, I also assume H. White and his co-author do.
... I'm simply saying that although there is a fantastical amount of great value here especially as regards Dr. Rodel's analysis to this point, this data is from a conference paper, written to gain funding. It is not a statistically valid sample..... And these other labs haven't put out data that we can look at. So how then can we compare them?
I have said what I have said about Sonny's method on several occasions and the point here is to note, that this is a conference paper, with no statistically valid data, and so any comparison is doomed to mislead at best, ... There's nothing wrong with Dr. Rodel's method so far as I can see, save that he's straining to do a real analysis of something less than real data.
You make valid points about error-bars and the paucity of data points.
However you persist in your claim that it is not 'real' data and thus fabricated.
Please stop this nonsense. Question everything by all means.
Please, please, keep this place honest, open, and constructive by all means.
Wouldn't it be better to wait until you get more experimental information from those actually working in this area, it seems like there isn't enough data out there in the public domain at the moment to form a coherent answer to your questions?
Wouldn't it be better to wait until you get more experimental information from those actually working in this area, it seems like there isn't enough data out there in the public domain at the moment to form a coherent answer to your questions?
I'm with you on that. New data can't come soon enough.
So you are stating that Dr White is a complete fraud and a liar?The more accurate model will fit the data points more accurately.This is the trouble, as this above is not true. Given at least one of the half dozen contenders to explain the lab findings at Eagleworks is correct (which we don't know), there is no reason to suppose that explanation would form the basis of a calculation that is closer to the lab data than those made by other models. When you don't know what is wrong with a model, or with the setup, or a host of other things, you cannot make these kinds of judgements. The thing to do is certainly to withhold judgement. There is no doubt that this above is a fallacy--an example of flawed logic--and Dr. White has deliberately exploited this sort of thing in the past in order to get funding. I kid you not, you should never play this game. It is wrong start to finish and has nothing to do with science. This is rhetoric.
No - no. I believe the correct choice is to discard the top 6 models and start with a clean sheet. But since we don't have 6 models, we can't throw them out.
@Dr. Rodal - Do you have current regression analysis for all the models so we will know which to discard.
@ Frobnicat - Do you have some models we can discard, or are you still awaiting new dimensions?
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
OK I run in my inverted torsional pendulum model in Mathematica (with coupled nonlinear equations) the decaying exponential rises of the form
Fb(t)=80 microNewtons*(1-exp(-t/tau))
and I can firmly state that any tau < 7 sec produces a pendulum response that is negligibly different from tau =0 (an impulse response). Any tau < 7 sec produces a response that is practically the same as an impulsive response.
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
John, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition
This device is fictional. No one would build a dewar this way.
Couple of random links for dewars:
Buy it now at:
http://www.cryofab.com/products/cmsh_series
http://nmrwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ice_in_my_dewar!_%28Liquid_helium_transport_dewar%29
http://www.kadel.com/liquid-helium-dewars/
The oracle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_storage_dewar
Gravity Probe B:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl_100104.html
Hey John could you take a look at this drawing please: http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/designJohn, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition
Jose:
What with the trolls spreading their puritannical dung over your and my hysterical repartee, I have lost a great deal of interest in doing something that is no longer fun and does not pay the bills.....
Hey John could you take a look at this drawing please: http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/designJohn, could you please re-draw when you have a chance and the disposition
Jose:
What with the trolls spreading their puritannical dung over your and my hysterical repartee, I have lost a great deal of interest in doing something that is no longer fun and does not pay the bills.....
"Figures 1 and 2 depict two halves of the QDrive cavity. The dimensions are in cms."
Figure 2 is practically solid except for the slots, which we know from NASA to be spurious (from NASA's null test).
So what I need to know is the height of the internal cavity in Fig. 1
In Fig. 1 detail A it reads "R .1000" which to me means 0.1 cm or 1 mm. This would say that the height is 0.1 cm = 1 mm
However, if done to scale, corresponding with the dimensions shown in Fig.2 the period may be in the wrong place and the Radius on Detail A may be 1 cm and hence the height be 1 cm.
Particularly when compared to the radius labeled R.152 that in Detail A appears much smaller than the radius labeled R.1000
What do you think ?
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC_fig_1.gif)
Regarding the radius of curvature .1 cm or whatever. Isn't that outside the cavity? Or is the drawing printed up side down? Not likely without deliberate deceit.
As to the base drawing attached here, what is that detailed? Is it a 3 cm by 1 cm deep torus around the outer rim of the base? If the device is designed to bounce microwaves around the corner then what would the effective depth be? Before answering, please evaluate whether or not microwaves could behave in that fashion.
If so, then Cannae's idea would be for all the end reflections to occur in the same axial direction.
I am starting to wonder if the info needed the most (predictive equations, measurements, frequencies) isn't hidden away by Non Disclosure Agreements. Might account for the lack of later papers (after 2007) by Doctor White, and why getting other info is like pulling teeth.
There just doesn't seem to be all that much to most of these devices. A competent machinist could probably build one in a weekend from scratch for not much more than beer money. Oddly shaped and constructed microwave ovens basically.
Regarding the radius of curvature .1 cm or whatever. Isn't that outside the cavity? Or is the drawing printed up side down? Not likely without deliberate deceit.
As to the base drawing attached here, what is that detailed? Is it a 3 cm by 1 cm deep torus around the outer rim of the base? If the device is designed to bounce microwaves around the corner then what would the effective depth be? Before answering, please evaluate whether or not microwaves could behave in that fashion.
If so, then Cannae's idea would be for all the end reflections to occur in the same axial direction.
Figures 1 and 2 depict two halves of the QDrive cavity. The dimensions are in cms.
But how we could know that for sure if not trying ? And even if nothing conclusive can be inferred, we can still further the subject about what is outright impossible and what is still on the table. Also surveys of many (ok, not that many in present situation) unreliable sources can turn up aspects unseen by each individual publication. This is not automatic, there is no assurance that all this time and energy won't be a waste, this is the rule of the game of being impatient (and I see lot of impatient people here) that is somehow also the rule that applies when undertaking anything at the edge and high risk/high payoff. Though in this case I wonder who would pay us... so we are only left with the high risk :)I completely agree: I see lots of impatience as well. I also see sermonizing about "you are going to find nothing here."
This device is fictional. No one would build a dewar this way.
Couple of random links for dewars. Buy it now at:
http://www.cryofab.com/products/cmsh_series
All of those references except the last one refer to cryogen storage dewars.
That's a little off. I suggest try to read the English bits on the wiki page linked above. The essential difference is that Woodward never even makes reference to virtual particles. His theory does not require them at all. In fact, in his book he explains that we don't really need them for anything. Contrary to popular notions floating around in the advanced propulsion ZPF and QVF camps (and now this new one) virtual particles are not required to explain things like Casimir Effect. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for CA that do not require virtual particles, but you would never get that listening to anyone who believes this wonky physics. And I would just note to you, the percent of people who believe in treating virtual particles this way is vanishingly small. That's why Sean Carroll at Cal Tech called this stuff "BuII$hit".
Thing is, there is many many places where people are saying "all those people working on propellantless propulsion are quacks.That's exactly right. When examining the issue of propellantless thrust, one is forced to look at things like personalities because people are the ones building and reporting on this stuff. You want to measure warrant for belief in any particular scheme, and engineers want to focus on the technical aspects even when they don't understand the underlying theory, but the job is much bigger than this. If you don't avail yourself to examining simple character quality, you're then left having to do the same analysis for Searl as you do for Eagle, and that is just a lot of wasted effort. So even though I agree we should be focused on technical aspects in this forum, it's also true these other things are extremely important and you can't just overlook them.
Yes well, I understand your point but it remains that your practical application is incorrect. It does not matter which explanation is closest to the observed value, especially when the calculations come after the data is received. This is simple scientific method any engineer should be aware of. How close a wrong answer is to the observed value forms no correlation whatsoever with any probability of its veracity, and asking people to think this way is inviting them to form a thinking error. I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this error because Dr. White has on many occasions compare his model to others in this way, inviting people to form this invalid conclusion. And it is easy to see how this happens. Fallacies are tricky things.
Further analysis of the anomalous thrusts based on that picture is a waste of time.
A common tautology found in any investigation:
"Further analysis of ...(by anybody that thinks the investigation is a waste of time) ...is a waste of time"
Hey John could you take a look at this drawing please:
Oh yeah, I created a new universe inside a copper can too.
Hey John could you take a look at this drawing please:
I did, and wrote a screed fifteen minutes ago, and fumble fingered the post, losing it in the well, aether. 'Tis only my time.
Short answer. The drawing is poorly dimensioned, but graphically, the depth of that cavity is 1 cm.
@John and those believing nothing conclusive can come out of the data because of its sketchy nature, I'm sure we all understand that it might very well be the case that indeed nothing conclusive can come at this stage with data acquired (and released) so far.
So the total cavity is 1cm+0.4cm+0.6cm+1cm = 3 cm
So the total cavity is 1cm+0.4cm+0.6cm+1cm = 3 cm
Thinking the two halves woudl be the same, I'd guess 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 cm, but hey.
I suppose there's a band, not illustrated, which would "seal" the joint between the two fitments.
I am starting to wonder if the info needed the most (predictive equations, measurements, frequencies) isn't hidden away by Non Disclosure Agreements. Might account for the lack of later papers (after 2007) by Doctor White, and why getting other info is like pulling teeth.
There just doesn't seem to be all that much to most of these devices. A competent machinist could probably build one in a weekend from scratch for not much more than beer money. Oddly shaped and constructed microwave ovens basically.
So the total cavity is 1cm+0.4cm+0.6cm+1cm = 3 cm
Thinking the two halves woudl be the same, I'd guess 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 cm, but hey.
I suppose there's a band, not illustrated, which would "seal" the joint between the two fitments.
I don't quite see why would 1 cm would become 0.5 cm, unless they are mating.
It looks that you are assuming that one half is a male and the other half is a female and they mate with each other, but the picture does not show any mating.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC.fig3.jpg)
Also you are not including the vertical edges (unless you assumed that the straigth edges dissapear upon mating both halves): the picture shows no penetration of the vertical straight edge into the other half.
The picture shows no mating. The picture does not show any penetration of one half into the other half.
...
I'm assuming this was tested with internal vacuum. Or was it just frozen air that was vaporized by RF energy?
the POC cavity and attached vacuum tubing are only supported by the central vacuum pipe depicted in Figure 4. The central vacuum pipe is attached to a support arm depicted in Figure 4. During experimental runs, the cavity and attached vacuum tubes are supported by two Cooper Instruments LFS 210 load cells.
....
the helium dewar depicted in Figure 4 is vacuum sealed. Pressure over the liquid helium is reduced to 50 Torre reducing its temperature to 2.3 K. Prior to experimental runs, the vacuum seal on the helium vessel is broken, bringing pressure above the liquid helium to atmospheric pressure. Tests on the cavity were then run while the liquid helium bath was below its atmospheric boiling temperature. The helium pump-down procedure eliminated boiling helium buoyancy beneath the cavity as a potential cause of false-positive experimental results.
I am starting to wonder if the info needed the most (predictive equations, measurements, frequencies) isn't hidden away by Non Disclosure Agreements. Might account for the lack of later papers (after 2007) by Doctor White, and why getting other info is like pulling teeth.
There just doesn't seem to be all that much to most of these devices. A competent machinist could probably build one in a weekend from scratch for not much more than beer money. Oddly shaped and constructed microwave ovens basically.
Sonny told Pop Sci when they came for a visit that he was restrained by NDA, but there are long odds on that. Who would have asked him to sign it? (Apart from the outside work they did for Boeing, wich makes perfect sense.) Rather he has likely asked others to so sign. The real issue here is that Sonny can't patent anything since he didn't invent the stuff. Best he can do is operate under trade secret status so you should not expect ever to get much detail about his setup.
BTW as we mentioned before, this cannot be done with a microwave oven magnetron. It needs a continuous wave magnetron. They're much more expensive, most often water cooled and not the kind of thing you can pick up on EBay for $25. They draw several kW of power and if you mess up with one, they're fry the inside of your eyeballs in 3 seconds. So this is not as simple as it seems.
@Rodal
Is what you're looking for from Dr. White on page 5?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf
@Rodal
Is what you're looking for from Dr. White on page 5?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to look for this, but no, this report by Dr. White does not contain any explicit equation with which one can calculate a thrust force.
It looks that you are assuming that one half is a male and the other half is a female and they mate with each other...
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
@ Dr. Rodel - You're Welcome.
With the right choice of resonant mode frequency the standing wave within the cavity results in unbalanced axial pressure giving thrust to the cavity, via the equation from the Chinese paper. The question still arises,
"Where does the momentum balance?"
Conservation is still very much of interest after all.
We are kind of at the point in sailing ship days where some crewman tied his sleeping roll to his oar, held it up and told his buddies, "Look, if I hold the corners with my feet I don't have to paddle!!"
That was long before tall ships with area ruled hulls and sloop rigged masts.
@ Dr. Rodel - You're Welcome.
With the right choice of resonant mode frequency the standing wave within the cavity results in unbalanced axial pressure giving thrust to the cavity, via the equation from the Chinese paper. The question still arises,
"Where does the momentum balance?"
Conservation is still very much of interest after all.
We are kind of at the point in sailing ship days where some crewman tied his sleeping roll to his oar, held it up and told his buddies, "Look, if I hold the corners with my feet I don't have to paddle!!"
That was long before tall ships with area ruled hulls and sloop rigged masts.
1) None, absolutely none of the researchers have actually measured linear acceleration of the center of mass of the system under measurement. No discussion of conservation of momentum is really an issue until somebody does. The ideal test would be for a free-free body, as done by the Wright brothers, Goddard, even the Gossamer Albatros, and the recent demonstration of the man-powered helicopter (which was considered impossible until recently).
2) NASA Eagleworks, the Chinese, Cannae, and Shawyer (except his demo) have made measurements on constrained systems. None of the researchers have analyzed their measurement systems to analyze whether indeed conservation of momentum is being violated. The closest experiment to a violation of conservation of momentum is Shawyer's demo experiment, but again, the EM Drive demo is restrained and the whole setup is rotating instead of linearly accelerating. No linear acceleration of the center of mass was measured and the measurement system was not analyzed.
If an astronaut inside a spacecraft puts a sensor on a wall of a spacecraft and then takes a big hammer and hits the wall of the spacecraft, he will measure dynamic motion of the wall of the spacecraft. That doesn't mean that conservation of momentum was violated. In that experiment the center of mass of the whole system (astronaut, hammer and walls) did not experience any acceleration due to the astronauts hammering the wall. However, the wall did move and it had a noticeable dynamic response.
Discussions of violation of conservation of momentum are premature until an experimenter shows that the center of mass of the whole system experienced an acceleration response either by flying the object unrestrained (free-free) or they properly analyze the measurement system - which nobody has done.
Shawyer made an explanation years ago about how the thruster would develop less and less thrust the faster it was going, but the mechanism made no sense, and it still proposed to violate conservation, and the whole notion of velocity changing thrust is again, a violation of relativity. Velocity relative to what exactly? ...snip...
There is no explicit mating shown in the referenced picture (reproduced below), and again you are considering the lip from only one side.
There is no explicit mating shown in the referenced picture (reproduced below), and again you are considering the lip from only one side.
Not quite sure I unnerstand ya, doc. Here's my guess as to what the section thru the completely fabricated round thing is.
There is no explicit mating shown in the referenced picture (reproduced below), and again you are considering the lip from only one side.
Not quite sure I unnerstand ya, doc. Here's my guess as to what the section thru the completely fabricated round thing is.
So I reckon that you came up with the same cavity height: 3 cm (three centimeters), partner
Thanks
Yahbut, as you see, I said, 0.5 + 0.5 for those fractional dimensions. Never could figger out how you got 0.4 + 0.6, but never mind. Notice how many of the dimensions are estimates.
Walkin' in Tall Cotton - Doin' Aw'right
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum response to exponentially decaying forcing functions (force in Newtons)
© Rodal 2014 :)
The previous plots showed the torsional angular motion due those purely torsional forcing functions .
It is interesting to look at the chaotic motion of the swinging angular motion of the pendulum for the lower moment of inertia motion, due to coupled nonlinearity for the following case:
Forcing function for torsional force:
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{0,t>= 30}}],tau=0.000001
Forcing function for swinging force excitation (lower moment of inertia angular direction)
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=0.000001
NOTE: the amplitude is about 1% of the previous motion, so the chaotic motion is not noticeable for this forcing function during this time period. Notice that the chaotic motion persists long after the forcing excitation has died out: a chaotic artifact due to the nonlinear equations of motion ..
...
There is no explicit mating shown in the referenced picture (reproduced below), and again you are considering the lip from only one side. There is also a contacting lip on the other side that I took into account as well as the curved recess from the other side. There is no penetration shown in this picture so you have 1 cm + 0.4 cm lip + 0.6 lip + 1cm = 3 cm depth of cavity (measured in vertical direction)
(http://web.archive.org/web/20121104025749im_/http://www.cannae.com/images/POC.fig3.jpg)
The QDrive POC cavity demonstrated an unbalanced force that was approximately 2-3% of numerical method predictions for peak-force generation of the design. The POC cavity did not develop full thrust due to power limitations into the cavity. The low field energy in the cavity is related to low cavity Q and power losses in the cavity that are not related to Niobium BCS losses. The likely cause for this power loss in the cavity is related to signal-port design and port placement on the cavity.
This section will show that a radially-asymmetric, equatorially-asymmetric resonating cavity can generate a time-averaged MFF that is not counterbalanced by an equal and opposite time-averaged EFF. This imbalance in the combined MFF and EFF yields a time-averaged net imbalance in the total Lorentz force exerted on the cavity. An unbalanced force is generated.
The resonating cavity depicted in Figure 1 below is a QDrive resonating cavity capable of generating a time-averaged linear imbalance in the net Lorentz forces exerted on the cavity by operation of a TM010 EM wave within the cavity. The linear unbalanced-force vector on the cavity of Figure 1 is coincident with the z-axis of the cavity.
There are 60 identical slots located on the bottom plate of the cavity of Figure 1. The slots are located in areas of the resonating cavity that experience strong magnetic fields and weak electric fields.
figure 1
Figure 1
On the top plate of the cavity, above the slots of the bottom plate, Lorentz forces generated on the cavity walls by the magnetic field of the EM wave point in the positive z-direction. On the bottom plate, on areas of the cavity wall located between the slots (called bridges), Lorentz forces generated by the magnetic field of the EM wave point in the negative z-direction.
When operated with a TM010 EM wave, the cavity generates a time-averaged net imbalance in Lorentz forces on the cavity. The imbalance in Lorentz forces occurs because the magnetic-field, Lorentz-force pressure in the positive z-direction on the top plate is greater than the negative z-directed, magnetic-field, Lorentz-force pressure on the bottom plate.
The EFF generated by the TM010 wave operating in the cavity does not counterbalance the positive z-directed MFF. In the areas of the cavity where strong electric fields occur, the cavity is symmetrical with respect to z-directed, electric-field Lorentz forces. The cavity asymmetries occur in areas of weak electric field and strong magnetic field, meaning that the imbalance in EFF generated by these asymmetries (the slots located on the bottom plate) is negligible compared with the MFF imbalance generated by these asymmetries.
In the cavity of Figure 1, the differential in magnetic-field Lorentz forces is not counterbalanced by the differential in electric-field Lorentz forces. A time-averaged, net-unbalanced Lorentz force is generated on the cavity by operation of a TM010 EM wave within the cavity.
...
I'm assuming this was tested with internal vacuum. Or was it just frozen air that was vaporized by RF energy?Quotethe POC cavity and attached vacuum tubing are only supported by the central vacuum pipe depicted in Figure 4. The central vacuum pipe is attached to a support arm depicted in Figure 4. During experimental runs, the cavity and attached vacuum tubes are supported by two Cooper Instruments LFS 210 load cells.
....
the helium dewar depicted in Figure 4 is vacuum sealed. Pressure over the liquid helium is reduced to 50 Torre reducing its temperature to 2.3 K. Prior to experimental runs, the vacuum seal on the helium vessel is broken, bringing pressure above the liquid helium to atmospheric pressure. Tests on the cavity were then run while the liquid helium bath was below its atmospheric boiling temperature. The helium pump-down procedure eliminated boiling helium buoyancy beneath the cavity as a potential cause of false-positive experimental results.
Frobnicat: your comments would be appreciated whether the heated air artifact would be nullified by this test
Shawyer made an explanation years ago about how the thruster would develop less and less thrust the faster it was going, but the mechanism made no sense, and it still proposed to violate conservation, and the whole notion of velocity changing thrust is again, a violation of relativity. Velocity relative to what exactly? Made no sense and that was just before they cut his funding in Great Britain, IIRC.
....
This one gave me a headache:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107172136/http://www.cannae.com/theory-of-operation/conservation-laws
Part lecture in basic physics, part equations I can't grasp.
I'll finish with this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107172131/http://www.cannae.com/theory-of-operation/appendices
Not sure how they made the thing, but I was figuring the 1cm depth, plus a 0.5cm "lip", visible in the section and the detail. You make two of the round things, and join 'em lip to lip. (don't start with a mating call, pardner) Either you weld them together, or you mechanically fasten them with a 1cm (-) band.
Zen-in:
Step by step photo's with explanations as to how this device was fabricated:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121005004712/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results/2-uncategorised/30-appendix-d
...as simple as possible clean setup, even with lousy thrust/power ratio (but still better than 1/c) is just the experiment all "classically educated" scientists are waiting for to give any credibility to those results.
In vacations with limited connectivity, all this will take a few days.
what was the best guess as to the thickness of copper for the walls?
you should hear a pshhit.
would the power distribute evenly on all inner surfaces?
"super insulation" is added by SuperGenious:
....
This one gave me a headache:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107172136/http://www.cannae.com/theory-of-operation/conservation-laws
Part lecture in basic physics, part equations I can't grasp.
I'll finish with this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107172131/http://www.cannae.com/theory-of-operation/appendices
This stuff from Cannae and from the Chinese, that one can derive from Maxwell's equations a Lorentz force imbalance is erroneous. What it shows is a lack of understanding of the stress tensor.
The paper by Egan correctly solves the problem of force balance not just for a truncated cone, but for any cavity shape (at the end of Egan's paper):
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
Dr. White made the same kind of mistake when describing his version of warp. Originally he claimed that his warp notion would essentially provide a "warp boost" that allowed craft to multiply their velocity. So warping spacetime around a craft moving 500 kps could allow it to go 5,000 kps. The trouble came when he was asked what velocity to use. Since velocity is relative, what he was describing was impossible. These kinds of blunders are why you don't want people without adequate training doing your gravity physics for you.Shawyer made an explanation years ago about how the thruster would develop less and less thrust the faster it was going, but the mechanism made no sense, and it still proposed to violate conservation, and the whole notion of velocity changing thrust is again, a violation of relativity. Velocity relative to what exactly? ...snip...
I agree with that. His explanation seemed to me to require the thruster to remember the reference frame at the time of "Power on" and limit itself to accelerations that conserved everything. Maybe he was saying something else but if so, it was very obscure to me.
I don't know about his funding.
Zen-in:
Step by step photo's with explanations as to how this device was fabricated:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121005004712/http://www.cannae.com/proof-of-concept/experimental-results/2-uncategorised/30-appendix-d
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum response to exponentially decaying forcing functions (force in Newtons)
© Rodal 2014 :)
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{0,t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=2
I'm trying hard to express myself ...
...Sorry, I re-checked the code because that statement about the 7 sec didn't make sense to me and I found an error on my definition of the exponential function (I had the variable "time" instead of "t" which mean different things in my code. I'll be back with the correct result
Yes, any tau>0.2 sec is clearly discernable.
For tau ~ 1 sec the difference is unacceptable
I'll post some pictures tomorrow after I double check everything. I need to do some work for which I get real $$$ first :)
All right. I'm a bit surprised then. Maybe not 7s but 2s seemed like possible to me (with eyeballs used to look at basic second order ringing oscillators).
Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum response to exponentially decaying forcing functions (force in Newtons)
© Rodal 2014 :)
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{0,t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=2
Okay, I see, even with short rise times there is not enough "hit" to ring the bell, so to speak.
Note to John: I'm trying hard to express myself without using profanity but remember I'm operating on a non native language here, so my "English emulated mode" is both slower and might appear clumsy, or even "syntax erroneous" at times. I hope the ideas get through.
I still see a qualitative difference in the graphs Obs(t) though : the amplitude of ringing seem to imply a very fast rising time, but we see in your simulated curves that the first ridge of the ringing (the overshoot) is farther to the later stable level of .00001 than the second ridge. First overshoot is .000005 above, second is less than .000003 below (black curve, tau = 0). In the experimental graphs, figure 19, matter is complicated by the drifting baseline but this magnitude difference (relative to the "flat" level after) is not at all seen for the thrust pulses, while it is seen (more or less) for the calibration pulses where we are sure the rise time tau is 0.
If going to the third ridge (sorry this is impractical for me to draw pictures right now) that is the second ringing above (that is, one natural period after the initial overshoot), this second overshoot above is much lower the first (say .000005 for the first, 0.0000015 for the second). Again this is far from obvious in the experimental graphs of figure 19. while it appears more clearly (not perfectly) for the calibration pulses.
On the experimental graphs, If I try visually (I know, this can be misleading) to smooth out the ringing, then I see a ramp-up of the order of one period before reaching the plateau. Hope you see that. How comes ? From the amplitude of ringing, your simulations show we should have a "hit", almost instantaneous excitation to near nominal magnitude. But my visual impression (to be studied more quantitatively) would imply something is rising more slowly, with a tau of 2s or so. Could it be that we have for Fb(t) the sum of a rectangular component of near nominal magnitude (say 75%) + a smaller component (say 25%) of tau =2s ? We already know we have a rectangular pulse component of about 10% with the DC power (at 5.6 Amps)... before we embark on why there would be on top of that a 65% fast rectangle + 25% slower rate "charge/discharge" pulse : I'd like to see, since you have the tools at hand, what shape you have with 0.75*pure_rectangle(t) + 0.25*exp_charge_discharge(t) with various tau as you did (and maybe also trying the relative weights 0.5 0.5 and 0.9 0.1) That would make for 3x5 = 15 curves to sieve through :)
I owe you abearbeer for the surprise of your simulated results, and learning of the explicit term "dynamic amplification factor"
Concerning the chaotic components, you say that they are 1% of the amplitude of the main modes, do you agree we have quite a lot to explain (in the experimental curves) as main mode responses first before seriously taking that into account ? Also, concerning the principal behaviour of the system (that likely gives 95% of the recorded signal) would you say it is nonlinear ? How far is it from a simple slightly underdamped harmonic oscillator of the form d²x/dt² + 2*damp_ratio*omega0*dx/dt + omega0²*x = 0 ? Would you mind sharing your model's equations ? I'm ready to sign a NDA if you wish...
2) NASA Eagleworks, the Chinese, Cannae, and Shawyer (except his demo) have made measurements on constrained systems. None of the researchers have analyzed their measurement systems to analyze whether indeed conservation of momentum is being violated. The closest experiment to a violation of conservation of momentum is Shawyer's demo experiment, but again, the EM Drive demo is restrained and the whole setup is rotating instead of linearly accelerating. No linear acceleration of the center of mass was measured and the measurement system was not analyzed.It's probably worth noting that Woodward has measured the acceleration of the center of mass in his setup. He did that last Fall when he received feedback from the Aero Corp about their concern that displacing the center of mass could have caused his readings but he and Dr. Heidi Fern showed conclusively this is not true by actually measuring that displacement. He could have done this more accutrately with a laser vibrometer but the method he used was certainly sufficient.
...
The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.
Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum response to exponentially decaying forcing functions (force in Newtons)
© Rodal 2014 :)
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{0,t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=0,0.5,1,2,3
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-Exp[-t/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= 30}}],tau=2
For what it's worth, I measure the FRP board at 0.060" and the copper cladding at 0.002". (the stuff I have here anyway)My measurements are taken at the inside bend of the copper. The FRC boards are outside that point, but the copper cladding is inside that point. IOW extend my length by 2 * 0.002" and shorten my diameters by the same amount. That is a further correction we should make.
I need a little help here. I'm trying to get an accurate estimate of the Brady cavity dimensions so that frobnicat will have the data he needs to evaluate dimensionally accurate equation formulations for Force. Using the attached left side photo, I have used my screen pixel ruler to extract dimensions as follows.
x -pixels y -pixels pixel dist
w-b 3 246 246.018292
w-s 14 138 138.7083271
L 221 0 221
------------------------------------------
top slope -221 57 0.257918552
bot slope 213 54 -0.253521127
taper 0.511439679
Using the right side photo I have sketched what I think the camera sees. That is, it sees a chord of the big and small ends, and foreshortened length. To estimate the degree of foreshortening, I measured the cross section of the Faztek beams circled in red on the photos. The beam near the camera measures 41 pixels on a side, and the far beams measure 25 pixels wide. I measured both diagonals of the near beam end, and both widths of the far beams. Only one measurement differed by 1 pixel.
Assuming the center of the base is equidistant from the near and far beams, (Might need to adjust this slightly)I calculate the beam width of the Faztek beam supporting the cavity corresponding to the distance from camera to axial center of the cavity to be 33.125 pixels = 1.5 inches = 3.81 cm, or 0.115018868 cm/pixel. Using this conversion I calculate the chord lengths illustrated in the attached drawing to be
w-big chord = 28.29674543 cm
w-small chord = 15.95407475 cm
and foreshortened length = 25.41916981 cm
But I need some help calculating the actual diameters and real length. It is not a huge factor but it is probably the largest error source remaining in the estimated cavity size.
...
We should also model thisQuote from: Brady, March, White, et.al.The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.
And the awful drift up and down of their "baseline".
Frobnicat, do you have any suggestion on how best to model this? In which direction (A) torsional, B) swinging with largest rotary inertia, C) swinging with lowest rotary inertia) is their "9.6 micronewton null force" ?
I don't think it could be torsional. It looks (from their arrangement) like it is a B) swinging motion of the Faztek beams that gets measured as a torsional displacement because of the coupling between swinging and torsion.
If so, it should be entered into my model, rather as they do (in a sort of clumsy way) by subtracting it from their measured response (they assume linearity).
Well, there is a lot to answer there. But what do you think of just modeling the impulse as a trapezoid ?
That means: a linear rise from zero at t=0 to f1 at t=t1, then a slower linear rise from f1 to f2 at t2, and then a linear fall from f2 to zero at t3?
then we can plot several trapezoids, essentially I agree that the rise to f1 is fast, followed by a slower rise to f2
From your writing I think you are seeing actually a more complicated picture, but both of us are patient (unlike others in this forum) so we could try to understand the behavior to this trapezoidal impulse first.
Only... isn't a DC current supposed to go and come back ? A twisted pair would in principle suffice to neutralize any net imbalance. Only when the cables separate we have a loop with coupling to magnetic field. So, where the cables separate (at the wet contacts box? inside the amplifier?) and at what angle in what plane ?Since they claim to know they have b field coupling, one presumes they waved some Mu metal between or some such. It wouldn't be the first time a twisted pair produced a noticeable force and these are very small forces.
...
We should also model thisQuote from: Brady, March, White, et.al.The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.
And the awful drift up and down of their "baseline".
Frobnicat, do you have any suggestion on how best to model this? In which direction (A) torsional, B) swinging with largest rotary inertia, C) swinging with lowest rotary inertia) is their "9.6 micronewton null force" ?
I don't think it could be torsional. It looks (from their arrangement) like it is a B) swinging motion of the Faztek beams that gets measured as a torsional displacement because of the coupling between swinging and torsion.
If so, it should be entered into my model, rather as they do (in a sort of clumsy way) by subtracting it from their measured response (they assume linearity).
At the moment I do ask a lot of questions and don't answer a lot. Have to say I still don't have a good picture of the torsion pendulum geometry and where gizmos are relative to pivot (save the thruster).
Time to get a better understanding : from figure 1, left picture, we have a gantry that's static, along the vertical left "leg" of this gantry there are two flexure bearing with vertical axis, on the right picture we can only see the upper one, as two dark grey bloc and I guess the "spring foils" are hidden in the cylindrical space between them. Is that it ?
So essentially we have a vertical pivot on the left of the diamond shaped plate (second picture figure 17) that's fixed on the right of the horizontal rotating arm, so that pivot axis is roughly centered in the middle of the faztek arm. This pivot has a linear restoring torque proportional to angular deviation from rest position. On the right of the upper part of vertical plate that links the arm to the flexure bearings there is a connecting box, this box will move with the arm.
The static gantry is on three height adjustable (and vibration isolating ?) platforms so that the axis can be set a good vertical I guess. The oblique horizontal faztek linking the arm to the right leg of the gantry is seen on some pictures, not others; I guess it is used to fasten the rotating arm when mounting things and then removed for measures.
Figure 1 picture left : the liquid contacts system is the thing on top of the gantry, on the left, above the flexure bearings (aligned with axis of rotation ?). On figure 6 the upper white board is fixed to the gantry, the white board below (with cut angles) is the part that moves with the arm. It is somehow mechanically and electrically connected to the connecting box below.
We see the damping system on the third picture of figure 17 : it is situated at the back of the arm, below the amplifier. When the arm rotates, the "fin" enter and leaves the space between the strong magnets : figure 3 second picture the view is lateral to the arm, the plunging "fin" is fixed to back end of arm, it goes forward backward relative to the view. The permanent magnets are enclosed in a ferromagnetic U trying to close the circuit.
It's tempting to see the leaks of this magnetic circuit as a dipole with axis roughly aligned with arm. Hard to tell from the pictures (maybe with an added hour of eye straining ...) where is the cable that goes from the liquid contacts, above the axis, to the RF amplifier, back of the arm. Could be in the same plane, vertical plane defined by the arm. And magnetic field lines would be parallel to this plane (that needs to be checked, the U closing the magnetic circuit is not symmetric relative to that plane). That would give a cross product ILxB force directed orthogonal to that vertical plane above the arm.
Ok lets say, the arm is axis x positive front (thruster) negative back (RF amplifier and magnets). The y axis is orthogonal, going to the right, the z axis is upward. And origin at the middle of the arm, at the axis of rotation. I would say the spurious DC force is along the y direction, applied somewhere between the wet contacts above the origin at x=y=0 z=+something and the amplifier at x=-something y=0 z=+not_much
If you could confirm my x y z link to your A B C :
A) torsional : rotation around z axis ?
B) swinging with largest rotary inertia : rotation around y axis ?
C) swinging with lowest rotary inertia) : rotation around x axis ?
The B and C modes would be very stiff (similar stiffness)
The A and B modes would have similar moment of inertia
The flexure bearings would introduce some level of coupling between the 3 angles + 3 displacements, is that where you get the nonlinearities ?
From this line of reasonning the DC spurious force would have a direct torque around the z (mode A) and x (mode C) axis. Just the opposite of what you said :)
Only... isn't a DC current supposed to go and come back ? A twisted pair would in principle suffice to neutralize any net imbalance. Only when the cables separate we have a loop with coupling to magnetic field. So, where the cables separate (at the wet contacts box? inside the amplifier?) and at what angle in what plane ? Short of those answers, best guess is to take into account only what goes into A mode and discard the chaotic aspects of A B C coupling.
So, in the end, for the principal dynamic activity of the balance around A, at 99% we have a simple (under)damped harmonic oscillator no ? What is the force vs speed function of a magnetic damper ?
Well, there is a lot to answer there. But what do you think of just modeling the impulse as a trapezoid ?
That means: a linear rise from zero at t=0 to f1 at t=t1, then a slower linear rise from f1 to f2 at t2, and then a linear fall from f2 to zero at t3?
then we can plot several trapezoids, essentially I agree that the rise to f1 is fast, followed by a slower rise to f2
From your writing I think you are seeing actually a more complicated picture, but both of us are patient (unlike others in this forum) so we could try to understand the behavior to this trapezoidal impulse first.
I understand you see a piecewise linear function as the default way to introduce more (not too much) parameters to fit the target data. It's ok for me.
From my "more complicated picture" that will take many hours to just utter (a chance that you are patient !) I still suggest rectangle plus exp "charge/discharge". If piecewise linear it would rather look like :
______
/ |
____| \_______
I'm a big fan of chaotic swing too, but right now I'm on an agenda with lower Lyapunov exponent.
....
From this line of reasonning the DC spurious force would have a direct torque around the z (mode A) and x (mode C) axis. Just the opposite of what you said :)
....
Based on my memory of their setup, I am not following your line of reasoning here. Let me go back to Brady's report and check whether I remember correctly their setup.
Well, there is a lot to answer there. But what do you think of just modeling the impulse as a trapezoid ?
That means: a linear rise from zero at t=0 to f1 at t=t1, then a slower linear rise from f1 to f2 at t2, and then a linear fall from f2 to zero at t3?
then we can plot several trapezoids, essentially I agree that the rise to f1 is fast, followed by a slower rise to f2
From your writing I think you are seeing actually a more complicated picture, but both of us are patient (unlike others in this forum) so we could try to understand the behavior to this trapezoidal impulse first.
I understand you see a piecewise linear function as the default way to introduce more (not too much) parameters to fit the target data. It's ok for me.
From my "more complicated picture" that will take many hours to just utter (a chance that you are patient !) I still suggest rectangle plus exp "charge/discharge". If piecewise linear it would rather look like :
______
/ |
____| \_______
I'm a big fan of chaotic swing too, but right now I'm on an agenda with lower Lyapunov exponent.
f=0 @ t=0
f=f1 @ t=t1
f=f2 @ t=t2
f=f2 @ t=t3
f=f3 @ t=t4
f=0 @ t=t5
Please give me f1, f2,f3 and t1,t2,t3,t4,t5 you would like
f1 = f2 - f3 therefore f3 = f2 - f1 ?
t1 = t4 - t3 therefore t4 = t1 + t3 ?
t2 - t1 = t5 - t4 therefore t5 = t2 + t3 ?
therefore,
need f1, f2, and t1,t2,t3
Ok...time for the rest of you to post the cute videos demonstrating how deep of a hole I dug for myself this time...
Well, there is a lot to answer there. But what do you think of just modeling the impulse as a trapezoid ?
That means: a linear rise from zero at t=0 to f1 at t=t1, then a slower linear rise from f1 to f2 at t2, and then a linear fall from f2 to zero at t3?
then we can plot several trapezoids, essentially I agree that the rise to f1 is fast, followed by a slower rise to f2
From your writing I think you are seeing actually a more complicated picture, but both of us are patient (unlike others in this forum) so we could try to understand the behavior to this trapezoidal impulse first.
I understand you see a piecewise linear function as the default way to introduce more (not too much) parameters to fit the target data. It's ok for me.
From my "more complicated picture" that will take many hours to just utter (a chance that you are patient !) I still suggest rectangle plus exp "charge/discharge". If piecewise linear it would rather look like :
______
/ |
____| \_______
I'm a big fan of chaotic swing too, but right now I'm on an agenda with lower Lyapunov exponent.
f=0 @ t=0
f=f1 @ t=t1
f=f2 @ t=t2
f=f2 @ t=t3
f=f3 @ t=t4
f=0 @ t=t5
Please give me f1, f2,f3 and t1,t2,t3,t4,t5 you would like
f1 = f2 - f3 therefore f3 = f2 - f1 ?
t1 = t4 - t3 therefore t4 = t1 + t3 ?
t2 - t1 = t5 - t4 therefore t5 = t2 + t3 ?
therefore,
need f1, f2, and t1,t2,t3
Not much time, a mountain is waiting for my feet :
f=0 @ t=0-
f=80(1-ssr) @ t=0+ (instantaneous rise)
f=80 @ t=tau
f=80 @ t=30-
f=80ssr @ t=30+ (instantaneous fall)
f=0 @ t=30+tau
only two free running parameters : tau for the slow component and ssr = smooth/sharp ratio
let's try ssr = .4 .2 .1
together with
tau = 0.25 0.5 1 2 4
more later about x y z
Ok...time for the rest of you to post the cute videos demonstrating how deep of a hole I dug for myself this time...
We aim to please:
Well, there is a lot to answer there. But what do you think of just modeling the impulse as a trapezoid ?
That means: a linear rise from zero at t=0 to f1 at t=t1, then a slower linear rise from f1 to f2 at t2, and then a linear fall from f2 to zero at t3?
then we can plot several trapezoids, essentially I agree that the rise to f1 is fast, followed by a slower rise to f2
From your writing I think you are seeing actually a more complicated picture, but both of us are patient (unlike others in this forum) so we could try to understand the behavior to this trapezoidal impulse first.
I understand you see a piecewise linear function as the default way to introduce more (not too much) parameters to fit the target data. It's ok for me.
From my "more complicated picture" that will take many hours to just utter (a chance that you are patient !) I still suggest rectangle plus exp "charge/discharge". If piecewise linear it would rather look like :
______
/ |
____| \_______
I'm a big fan of chaotic swing too, but right now I'm on an agenda with lower Lyapunov exponent.
f=0 @ t=0
f=f1 @ t=t1
f=f2 @ t=t2
f=f2 @ t=t3
f=f3 @ t=t4
f=0 @ t=t5
Please give me f1, f2,f3 and t1,t2,t3,t4,t5 you would like
f1 = f2 - f3 therefore f3 = f2 - f1 ?
t1 = t4 - t3 therefore t4 = t1 + t3 ?
t2 - t1 = t5 - t4 therefore t5 = t2 + t3 ?
therefore,
need f1, f2, and t1,t2,t3
Not much time, a mountain is waiting for my feet :
f=0 @ t=0-
f=80(1-ssr) @ t=0+ (instantaneous rise)
f=80 @ t=tau
f=80 @ t=30-
f=80ssr @ t=30+ (instantaneous fall)
f=0 @ t=30+tau
only two free running parameters : tau for the slow component and ssr = smooth/sharp ratio
let's try ssr = .4 .2 .1
together with
tau = 0.25 0.5 1 2 4
more later about x y z
Results for
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1 - ssr (1 - t/tau)),
t <= tau}, {(80*10^(-6)),
t < 30}, {(80*10^(-6))*(ssr/tau)*(30 + tau - t), t <= 30 + tau}}]
We see the effect of tau and ssr modifying mainly the dynamic magnification factor, as expected.
Varying tau at constant ssr
ssr=0.4 tau = 0, 1,2,3,4,5
ssr=0.4 tau = 4
Note: there are diminishing returns on this effect for tau >3
Varying ssr at constant tau
ssr=0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 tau = 4
ssr=0.5 tau = 4
Note: ssr close to 1 effectively "kills" the dynamic magnification factor (the "first ring" in Fornaro vernacular) without much affecting the second ring
.../...
So, in the end, for the principal dynamic activity of the balance around A, at 99% we have a simple (under)damped harmonic oscillator no ? What is the force vs speed function of a magnetic damper ?
the arm is axis x positive front (thruster) negative back (RF amplifier and magnets).
The y axis is orthogonal, going to the right,
the z axis is upward.
alpha=rotation around x axis
beta=rotation around y axis
gamma=rotation around z axis
OK let me answer one important question at the outset: where does the coupling come from.
The coupling comes from this nasty fact:
if you have a force applied at the origin along the x axis, it will be produce a swinging beta rotation around the y axis
if you have a force applied at the origin along the y axis, it will be produce a swinging alpha rotation around the x axis
if you have a force applied at the end of the x arm, oriented along the y axis, it will produce a gamma rotation around the z axis, but also (because of the above facts) one has nonlinear coupling:
alphaDot = d alpha /dt
alphaDotDot = d2 alpha /dt2
In the equations of motion for the gamma rotation around the z axis one also gets contributions from a number of terms, the most important ones being the following rates: alphaDot * betaDot and another contribution from beta * alphaDotDot
I obtained the 3-dimensional, nonlinearly coupled equations of motion by solving the Lagrangian.
Please notice that while the department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT has an inverted pendulum designed at MIT to eliminate this coupling (only linear x and y motions are allowed for the thruster), NASA Eagleworks neglected to eliminate this coupling.
The department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT has been a leader in nonlinear dynamics for the last century (starting with the problems of flutter and divergence and self-excited oscillations).
....
From this line of reasonning the DC spurious force would have a direct torque around the z (mode A) and x (mode C) axis. Just the opposite of what you said :)
....
Based on my memory of their setup, I am not following your line of reasoning here. Let me go back to Brady's report and check whether I remember correctly their setup.
Figure 3 shows the magnetic damper
One can see a porthole that is on a line perpendicular to the beam attached to the magnetic damper
The portholes are on the sides of the chamber
Therefore the magnetic damper is connected to the beam that runs longitudinally along the length of the chamber. Therefore the magnetic damper is connected to a beam that runs along the x axis.
If that beam running along the x axis goes through the center of rotation, the force oriented along direction x cannot produce a torque along the z axis, because the direction of the force will go through the center of torsional rotation.
A force directed along the x axis produces a swinging rotation "beta" around the y axis, swinging with largest rotary inertia.
<------------- X direction
Y axis perpendicular to this page
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=618570;image)
<--
/ \
beta rotation l
There is no such thing as passive perfect permanent B field shielding, is there ? The magnets are very strong, they are just below (10cm ?) the amplifier that receive the DC wires. I have no precise idea of the leaked B but the gaps in the magnetic circuit are huge, my guess would be around .1T. On a gradient of .001T per distance between + and - plugs, suffice to have 2mm length of unbalanced wire carrying 5 amps to reach a force of 5*2e-3*1e-3 = 10µN of force ! I would be at the place of the experimenters I would go like "well, just subtract that component".Only... isn't a DC current supposed to go and come back ? A twisted pair would in principle suffice to neutralize any net imbalance. Only when the cables separate we have a loop with coupling to magnetic field. So, where the cables separate (at the wet contacts box? inside the amplifier?) and at what angle in what plane ?Since they claim to know they have b field coupling, one presumes they waved some Mu metal between or some such. It wouldn't be the first time a twisted pair produced a noticeable force and these are very small forces.
The actual response of Eagleworks does look something like this response to this impulse + exponentially decaying rise forcing function:
Piecewise[{{(80*10^(-6))*(1-ssr)+(80*10^(-6))*ssr*(1-Exp[-t/tau])/(1-\
Exp[-30/tau]),t<30},{(80*10^(-6))*ssr*(Exp[-(t-30)/tau]),t>= \
30}}]
ssr=0.4
tau=4 seconds
....
Prior to the TM211 evaluations, COMSOL® analysis indicated that the TE012 was an effective thrust generation mode for the tapered cavity thruster being evaluated, so this mode was explored early in the evaluation process. Figure 22 shows a test run at the TE012 mode with an operating frequency of 1880.4 MHz. The measured quality factor was ~22,000, with a COMSOL prediction of 21,817. The measured power applied to the test article was measured to be 2.6 watts, and the (net) measured thrust was 55.4 micronewtons. With an input power of 2.6 watts, correcting for the quality factor, the predicted thrust is 50 micronewtons. However, since the TE012 mode had numerous other RF modes in very close proximity, it was impractical to repeatedly operate the system in this mode, so the decision was made to evaluate the TM211 modes instead.
.../...
And look at that very long exponentially decaying fall after that. What's up with that?
How come the researchers failed to comment on this?
27.92916748 cm
Ok, here are my final estimates of Bradly cavity.
The method:
1. Extract pixel lengths of chords from the photograph on the left, scale lengths from Frazt beams, and including the visible length of the Frazt beam extended in back.
2. Extract pixel length of visible Frazt beam extended in back from photo on right, and verify it's scale. Calculate the added length value in right photo to the length in left photo.
3. Calculate distance from edge of base plate to Frazt beam in back using geometry from photo on right. It is 52.30234549 pixels.
4. Calculate the scale factor at the center of the base plate. It is 34.40258068 px/cm.
5. Calculate distance of camera from center of base plate in left hand photo using pinhole projection formula.
6. Calculate angular diameter of base plate viewed from camera.
7. Calculate angle between radius of base and base tangent line from camera.
8. Calculate radius of small and bases plate using above angles and projected chord length. It is factor times the chord length. w-s factor = 1.008039357, w-b factor = 1.025077351
Applying these correction factors gives:
w-b w-s L
246.018292 138.7083271 221 raw chords, pixels
252.187779 139.8234528 226.5420945 factored, pixels
27.92916748 15.48509864 25.0889719 Scaled to cm
Here, w-b factor was used to factor length as they are near in numerical value.
Arguments about who's the better round-offer might be misunderstood.
John: The camera is very close. Its distance can be calculated by measuring that 1 1/2" FZTK stuff in front and back then estimating/measuring the distance difference between them.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- (1) could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? (2) is there any tangible progress, (3) or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
If you all got complaints, our complaint manager is Helen Waite. If you gotta complaint, go to Helen Waite.As American-English culture is something that I learn painfully, I am happy to capture here yet another language joke nearly undecipherable for foreigners, thanks :-)
Shawyer made an explanation years ago about how the thruster would develop less and less thrust the faster it was going, but the mechanism made no sense, and it still proposed to violate conservation, and the whole notion of velocity changing thrust is again, a violation of relativity. Velocity relative to what exactly? Made no sense and that was just before they cut his funding in Great Britain, IIRC.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I'm trying to scrap the data from the graphs of anomalous thrust... (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf) into a clean data format for the sheer enjoyment of all.
Problem with the vertical scale : page 15 fig. 19 we see that the calibration pulses of purported 30µN (29.1 precisely) span very close to 1 µm deviation on the vertical scale. Page 16 fig. upper left picture is more like 1.6 or 1.7 µm for the same purported 30µN, lower 2 pictures almost exactly 2 µm (always for 30µm or so). Page 17 fig.21 between 1.8 and 1.9 µN (to the naked eye). Page 18 fig. 22 no explicit vertical scale in µm.
How comes ? Am I to trust the cal. pulses amplitudes as an (approximate) way to scale µm to µN, therefore discarding the vertical left axis scale µm readings as irrelevant display feature (but those values otherwise look perfectly sensible as to the rest position) ? Is it possible that "variations" in stiffness of flexure bearings could change that much the µN/µm ratio ?? Could it be that the calibration pulses are, well, not that much calibrated ? Any indication in the reported that I missed that could explain this huge disparity ? What should be the torque/angle spring constant of the flexure bearings ? Or the calibration gizmo where moved along the beam's axis and that changed the torque at constant force ?
Displacement of the pendulum arm is measured via a Linear Displacement Sensor (LDS). The primary LDS components consist of a combined laser and optical sensor on the fixed structure and a mirror on the pendulum arm. The LDS laser emits a beam which is reflected by the mirror and subsequently detected by the optical sensor. The LDS software calculates the displacement (down to the sub-micrometer level) based upon the beam reflection time. Prior to a test run data take, the LDS is positioned to a known displacement datum (usually 500 micrometers) via mechanical adjustments to its mounting platform. Gross adjustments are performed via set screws. Fine adjustments are performed using manually-operated calibrated screw mechanisms and a remotely controlled motorized mechanism that can be operated with the chamber door closed and the chamber at vacuum. The remote adjustment capability is necessary since the LDS datum will change whenever a change to the test facility environment affects the roll-out table or the chamber – e.g., whenever the chamber door is closed or latched and whenever the chamber is evacuated. Once the LDS displacement is adjusted in the final test environment, further adjustment between test run data takes is usually not required.
Immediately prior to a test run data take, the displacement/force relationship is verified by inducing a known force onto the pendulum arm and measuring the displacement. This is done via the electrostatic fins calibration mechanism. This mechanism uses two sets of aluminum fins, one set on the fixed structure and one set on the pendulum arm. The fins overlap without touching. A calibration voltage is applied to the fixed structure fins, which induces a force upon the pendulum arm fins and an associated displacement that is measured by the LDS. The electrostatic fins design provides a constant force over a reasonably large range (between 30-70% overlap), so adjustments to the calibration mechanism between test run data takes and even between test article reconfiguration are usually not required. Calibration of the overlap/force relationship was accomplished using a Scientech SA 210 precision weighing balance (resolution to one micronewton).
In regards to force calibration we used a set of NIST traceable, pre-calibrated meshed electrostatic fins that provided a constant attractive force between the fin pair for a given applied calibration voltage over a 25% to 75% meshed fins range. This feature allows us to generate the same calibration force independent of the loading of the torque pendulum's C-flex torsional bearings or how much the fin set is meshed within the noted fin mesh range.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
I expect the cavities were made of some commonly available copper sheet. I doubt that Eagleworks did anything more difficult than go to the hardware store and buy a sheet of copper. Here is a web site that sells copper sheet. Look at the choices and take your pick. Or find your own favorite copper sheet retailer. Or call your local hardware store and ask them what thicknesses they have in stock. But from looking at the photo I can't tell, the resolution isn't good enough.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
I expect the cavities were made of some commonly available copper sheet. I doubt that Eagleworks did anything more difficult than go to the hardware store and buy a sheet of copper. Here is a web site that sells copper sheet. Look at the choices and take your pick. Or find your own favorite copper sheet retailer. Or call your local hardware store and ask them what thicknesses they have in stock. But from looking at the photo I can't tell, the resolution isn't good enough.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
I expect the cavities were made of some commonly available copper sheet. I doubt that Eagleworks did anything more difficult than go to the hardware store and buy a sheet of copper. Here is a web site that sells copper sheet. Look at the choices and take your pick. Or find your own favorite copper sheet retailer. Or call your local hardware store and ask them what thicknesses they have in stock. But from looking at the photo I can't tell, the resolution isn't good enough.
aero, although you wrote "Here is a web site that sells copper sheet" I do not see any web site information in your message. Could you please indicate what website you have in mind?
Mlltrn suggested copper 1/8" thick, that is thicker than the copper sheet readily available at my local hardware store. Do you think that they likely used thinner copper than 1/8? (I think that 1/16" would have been easier to work with. All these sheets are already smooth and shiny)
....
:-[ Well, I lost the site I was looking at earlier. Here's one that includes a thickness guide for choosing copper for a project. That might help but you'll have to convert the thickness to metric.
http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html (http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html)
...A proper spectrum analysis would be more elegant but since I don't have those tools at hand I went through crest detection. ...
First attempt to scrap the data and infer some parameter of the balance. From the top picture of figure 19 only, median natural period of oscillation would be 4.8s. ...
The natural oscillation period of the pendulum arm when loaded with the RF amplifier, its RF plumbing and the test article was around 4.5 seconds.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
....
:-[ Well, I lost the site I was looking at earlier. Here's one that includes a thickness guide for choosing copper for a project. That might help but you'll have to convert the thickness to metric.
http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html (http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html)
They show at the site you included thicknesses that range between 0.001 to 0.022 inches, while Mlltrn suggested 0.125 inches (125 times to 6 times thicker). In other words, you think that NASA used much thinner copper than him
....
:-[ Well, I lost the site I was looking at earlier. Here's one that includes a thickness guide for choosing copper for a project. That might help but you'll have to convert the thickness to metric.
http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html (http://basiccopper.com/copper-sheet--rolls.html)
They show at the site you included thicknesses that range between 0.001 to 0.022 inches, while Mlltrn suggested 0.125 inches (125 times to 6 times thicker). In other words, you think that NASA used much thinner copper than him
Sorry, I looked some more. The site I lost sold 1/8 copper sheet. But copper sheet is available from film to 1 inch plate so looking for a common thickness of sheet isn't going to help us. I would guess it is 1/8-th inch sheet but I've nothing to base that on except having seen it around here and there and it looks like 1/8-th inch.
Of course it could be 1/16-th inch sheet and I wouldn't know the difference. For the application it needs to be thin enough to roll into a cone and crimp right angle bends at both ends to attach the end plates. Then it also needs to be thick enough to hold its shape or pop back into shape when/if it is dented. Will 1/16 inch verses 1/8 inch make a difference in your calculations?
Looking at my ruler, I'd go with the thinner sheet. One-eighth inch is 0.3175 cm and we might be able to see that on the photos.
Add: In fact, the photo resolution is 0.11 cm/pixel, so 1/8 inch would be about 3 pixels which we would certainly be able to see. Is there a rule about resolution of a photo? We might even see 1/16 inch, at 1.5 pixels.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
I expect the cavities were made of some commonly available copper sheet. I doubt that Eagleworks did anything more difficult than go to the hardware store and buy a sheet of copper. Here is a web site that sells copper sheet. Look at the choices and take your pick. Or find your own favorite copper sheet retailer. Or call your local hardware store and ask them what thicknesses they have in stock. But from looking at the photo I can't tell, the resolution isn't good enough.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
Francesco, we are getting close to showing, analytically, that the EM Drives test results are likely an experimental artifact.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
Hi there.
I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.
Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.
As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
Fascinated member of the peanut gallery here. Peanut crop was good this year, eh?
I can take a shot at the highlights covered over the past 100 or so pages in this thread ....
... Rodal ... was of the view the reported results were an experimental artifact, most likely thermal in nature. After a post ... he and the other regular posters here began looking for alternatives, especially experimental artifacts. ... the explanations for the device's performances were seen ... to be flawed from the outset.
A number of reasonably rational scientific explanations were considered should all the experimental artifacts be ruled out. Of these, few showed any promise:
1) The device was somehow pushing against hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)
'Dark Matter.' This might be valid, if one accepts a very high estimate for the local abundance of Dark Matter, which stell needs to be found. But still dubious.
2) Ion Wind devices, using the Bifield - Brown effect. This is a real effect, used by...hobbyist...to make pure electrical flying devices. ... this was ruled out because of the very low power levels involved and because it needs atmosphere of a higher density than space to create ions out of.
3) Unruh Radiation, which is a sort of 'inertia radiation', which is an element in a branch of physics attempting to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics play well together, and which is also sort of hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect). [Unruh radiation] also negates many of the more dubious elements theorists have conjured to explain observed astronomical reality - things like dark matter and dark energy. A professor McCulloch has been promoting this on his blog, which is occasionally linked to in this thread. So...
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
Many of the last few dozen pages have been dedicated to gathering enough info about the various EM devices tested to run 'back of the envelope' calculations as to whether or not Unruh Radiation is a viable solution. Results have been mixed, in no small part because even basic information about these devices - like their size and proportions - is color=blue]unnecessarily[/color] very difficult to come by thru no fault of the thread's theorists. Additionally, this explanation is very frequency dependent, and worse, the frequency shifts. The experimenters are essentially blundering about in the dark, hitting the correct frequency by occasional accident. Unruh Radiation is still considered a possibility, and I believe several members here find the theory of great interest even if they doubt the EM Drive is somehow tapping into it. Which brings us to where matters stand now:
The experimenters are demonstrating an across the board failure to understand certain 'stress forces' which have a high possibility of giving at least partial false results in their experiments. The "across the board failure" is particularly troublesome, since there is no good reason for that failure. Furthermore, the explanatory equations put forth by both Doctor White and Shawyer have errors within them. Which means the results may be false positives - the EM Drive does not work.
That said, the notion of tapping into Unruh Radiation and using it to propel a starship is interesting in its own right.
And even if Unruh Radiation does not exist, some force, currently termed 'Dark Energy' exerts enough force on space-time to drive galaxies apart at a continuous 1 kilometer per second per kilo parsec.
(I hope I didn't get too many things wrong here.)
I expanded the photo as big as it will go, and slowed my mouse as slow as it will go to take out my hand shake, and picked off a 5 pixel width of the big end edge. At that scale the 3.81 cm Frzl? beam end was 110 pixels but close to the same distance from the camera.
Five pixels at that scale comes out to be 0.173 cm, or 1/16". But there is the question as to just what I measured because the ends of the cavity seem to be a board of some sort, and not all copper.
What are you trying to do? I guess you want to see if the vibration comes from flexing of the thin copper. But at a GHz, that seems unlikely. Better to analyze than guess, though. But if the end is a copper covered board, as has been suggested, what would be the density of that? And what would be the likelihood of the copper covering vibrating independently of the board? Coming loose, so to speak.
To explain the impulse part of the response,
I need to have an independent estimate of the copper thickness in these devices.
could anyone please provide a guesstimate or a range for what the thickness of the copper in these EM drives maybe ?
I am also interested in the thickness of the NASA test article. Shawyer and the Chinese I don't care about because of my lack of confidence in their reporting. It is important to my evanescent wave coupling hypothesis; in the quest for yet another plausible artifact to explain away reports of thrust from an empty copper can under high power. I've been getting indications and warnings of 1/8" thickness, but I cannot confirm with high confidence.
I expect the cavities were made of some commonly available copper sheet. I doubt that Eagleworks did anything more difficult than go to the hardware store and buy a sheet of copper. Here is a web site that sells copper sheet. Look at the choices and take your pick. Or find your own favorite copper sheet retailer. Or call your local hardware store and ask them what thicknesses they have in stock. But from looking at the photo I can't tell, the resolution isn't good enough.
The cone looks like it was made from 20 gauge or thinner copper, possibly the same material roofers use. You sometimes see trucks with a big spool of it on the back. 1/8" Thick copper would require machine tools like a metal press to form. Even 1/16" thick copper (14 gauge is the closest) requires a lot of work to form into a cone and the tool marks would show. Also the weight would be an issue. I think it is most likely 20 to 26 gauge (.032" - .016"). Building an apparatus like the eagleworks em-drive would not be difficult. Just a few large pieces of FR4, some lightweight Copper sheets and a jig for forming it into the cone shape.
The coupling coefficient is non-trivial. But calculating the Fourier non-dimensional time is trivial, so let's calculate the time for which the Fourier non-dimensional = 1, which is simply ((thickness)^2)/thermalDiffusivity
thermalDiffusivity = 1.11*10^(-4) m/s
so for thickness of copper = 1/8 in = 0.00318 m
hence time = 0.0908 s
so for thickness of copper = 1/16 in = 0.00159 m
hence time = 0.0227 s
so for thickness of copper = 0.022 in = 0.000559 m
hence time = 0.0028 s
So, the initial thermal effect on the copper thickness is clearly impulsive, from the point of view of the much slower response of the inverted torsional pendulum (with period ~ 4.5 s)
The coupling coefficient is non-trivial. But calculating the Fourier non-dimensional time is trivial, so let's calculate the time for which the Fourier non-dimensional = 1, which is simply ((thickness)^2)/thermalDiffusivity
thermalDiffusivity = 1.11*10^(-4) m/s
so for thickness of copper = 1/8 in = 0.00318 m
hence time = 0.0908 s
so for thickness of copper = 1/16 in = 0.00159 m
hence time = 0.0227 s
so for thickness of copper = 0.022 in = 0.000559 m
hence time = 0.0028 s
So, the initial thermal effect on the copper thickness is clearly impulsive, from the point of view of the much slower response of the inverted torsional pendulum (with period ~ 4.5 s)
Great! Look at the drumhead expansion of the big end .002" copper FRP w/ resistve heating from the Cu loss!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR-4
The coupling coefficient (basically due to the strain rate being larger than the temperature rate) is non-trivial. But calculating the Fourier non-dimensional time is trivial, so let's calculate the time for which the Fourier non-dimensional = 1, which is simply ((thickness)^2)/thermalDiffusivityAnother trivial thing we can do is to compute the mechanical characteristic times for wave propagation (as compared to thermal characteristic times given by Fourier's number), to confirm that they are much smaller than the thermal time. In fact they are about 1000 times smaller.
thermalDiffusivity = 1.11*10^(-4) m/s
so for thickness of copper = 1/8 in = 0.00318 m
hence time = 0.0908 s
so for thickness of copper = 1/16 in = 0.00159 m
hence time = 0.0227 s
so for thickness of copper = 0.022 in = 0.000559 m
hence time = 0.0028 s
So, the initial thermal effect on the copper thickness is clearly impulsive, from the point of view of the much slower response of the inverted torsional pendulum (with period ~ 4.5 s as provided by Paul March himself, or 4.8 s as measured by frobnicat, and both of them corroborated by my analytical model of the inverted torsional pendulum)
The coupling coefficient is non-trivial. But calculating the Fourier non-dimensional time is trivial, so let's calculate the time for which the Fourier non-dimensional = 1, which is simply ((thickness)^2)/thermalDiffusivity
thermalDiffusivity = 1.11*10^(-4) m/s
so for thickness of copper = 1/8 in = 0.00318 m
hence time = 0.0908 s
so for thickness of copper = 1/16 in = 0.00159 m
hence time = 0.0227 s
so for thickness of copper = 0.022 in = 0.000559 m
hence time = 0.0028 s
So, the initial thermal effect on the copper thickness is clearly impulsive, from the point of view of the much slower response of the inverted torsional pendulum (with period ~ 4.5 s)
Great! Look at the drumhead expansion of the big end .002" copper FRP w/ resistve heating from the Cu loss!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR-4
It is not the intent here to detail the theory or engineering of quantum vacuum plasma thrusters (Q-Thrusters). Rather, an overview of the foundational physics and laboratory findings are given.
Q-Thrusters attempt to use the properties of the “quantum vacuum” to propel a spacecraft. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) predicts that the quantum vacuum (the lowest state of the electromagnetic field) is not empty, but rather a sea of virtual particles and photons that pop into and out of existence stemming from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
A number of approaches to utilize this quantum vacuum to transfer momentum from a spacecraft to the vacuum have been synopsized in [1].
A Q-Thruster uses the same principles as conventional plasma thrusters, namely magnetohydrodynamics, where plasma is exposed to crossed electric and magnetic fields which induce a drift of the entire plasma in a direction orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in that a Q-Thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as the “propellant” source, eliminating the need for conventional on-board propellant. A discussion of spacecraft “conservation of energy” is given in Appendix A. Recent laboratory test results [2] indicate the expected thrust-to-power ratio for flight applications could be in the 0.4 – 4.0 N/kWe range, which is one to two orders of magnitude greater than current operational electric thrusters. This combination of characteristics – relatively high specific thrust combined with essentially zero on-board propellant requirement - suggest space mission performance levels significantly exceeding current capabilities.
Did the NASA researchers place that polymer composite on the Big Diameter end on purpose to insulate that end and use the copper/PCBoard to create a bimaterial end to maximize thermal waves ?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=618941;image)
Funny they would not comment about its effect on the experiment.
Maybe they didn't think about it 'cause they were spending too much time thinking of the quantum vacuum, General Relativity, and Mach Effects in comparison with classical effects... Too much time thinking about the speed of light and not enough thinking about the speed of sound
Did the NASA researchers place that polymer composite on the Big Diameter end on purpose to insulate that end and use the copper/PCBoard to create a bimaterial end to maximize thermal waves ?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=618941;image)
Funny they would not comment about its effect on the experiment.
Maybe they didn't think about it 'cause they were spending too much time thinking of the quantum vacuum, General Relativity, and Mach Effects in comparison with classical effects... Too much time thinking about the speed of light and not enough thinking about the speed of sound
Didn't they do the same thing on the small diameter end? It would have the same effect, but at a different frequency. How would the two ends interact? This could get complicated.
This is a little better picture showing the mounting. Looks like the cavity is freely resting on the beam. If it is not securely attached at that point, it might transmit vibration even better than through the cantilever.Yes, it is resting at the center of the beam so it only transmits waves with amplitude down at that location. Calling that beam longitudinal axis x, that vertically down z motion will impart a rotation around the horizontal y axis perpendicular to the x axis. The torsional inverted pendulum only has rotational degrees of freedom: rotationally around the vertical z axis (torsion) and rotationally around the x and y axes (swinging of the inverted cantilevered beam).
Wouldn't thermoelastic waves from the small end also cause vibrations that would propagate throughout the device? The copper cone is not going to isolate the two ends. The interaction of vibrations from both ends should produce an interesting pattern.The thermoelastic waves are quickly damped through dispersion (even in the absence of other forms of damping) and here they are also damped by the magnetic damping.
The coupling coefficient is non-trivial. But calculating the Fourier non-dimensional time is trivial, so let's calculate the time for which the Fourier non-dimensional = 1, which is simply ((thickness)^2)/thermalDiffusivity
thermalDiffusivity = 1.11*10^(-4) m/s
so for thickness of copper = 1/8 in = 0.00318 m
hence time = 0.0908 s
so for thickness of copper = 1/16 in = 0.00159 m
hence time = 0.0227 s
so for thickness of copper = 0.022 in = 0.000559 m
hence time = 0.0028 s
So, the initial thermal effect on the copper thickness is clearly impulsive, from the point of view of the much slower response of the inverted torsional pendulum (with period ~ 4.5 s)
Great! Look at the drumhead expansion of the big end .002" copper FRP w/ resistve heating from the Cu loss!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR-4
I need to know the boundary conditions for the 0.002" copper.
Is the 0.002" copper a separate thin sheet of copper, or is the 0.002" copper thermally sprayed on the fiber-reinforced-polymer substrate and hence integrally bonded to it, or is the 0.002" copper adhered to the fiber-reinforced-polymer substrate ?
Can the 0.002" be easily peeled apart from the polymer composite substrate?
(Can one hold on to that 0.002" copper with pliers and peel it apart from the polymer composite substrate?
Am I to conclude from the last few posts the thrust produced by the Eagleworks EM drive is in fact a thermoelestic artefact?
Am I to conclude from the last few posts the thrust produced by the Eagleworks EM drive is in fact a thermoelestic artefact?
We cannot say that. We can say that Rodal's hypothesis is that the Eagleworks EM drive is a thermoelectric artifact, that there is a distinct possibility that it is a thermoelectric artifact, and that Rodal in the process of demonstrating the likelihood of that cause with his analysis.
A [Date Acquired: Oct 30, 2014] paper co-authored by Dr. White presented at the Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf where he discusses short trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons and "uncovers an energy paradox" (see Appendix A) ;).Quote from: White et alIt is not the intent here to detail the theory or engineering of quantum vacuum plasma thrusters (Q-Thrusters). Rather, an overview of the foundational physics and laboratory findings are given.
Q-Thrusters attempt to use the properties of the “quantum vacuum” to propel a spacecraft. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) predicts that the quantum vacuum (the lowest state of the electromagnetic field) is not empty, but rather a sea of virtual particles and photons that pop into and out of existence stemming from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
A number of approaches to utilize this quantum vacuum to transfer momentum from a spacecraft to the vacuum have been synopsized in [1].
A Q-Thruster uses the same principles as conventional plasma thrusters, namely magnetohydrodynamics, where plasma is exposed to crossed electric and magnetic fields which induce a drift of the entire plasma in a direction orthogonal to the applied fields. The difference arises in that a Q-Thruster uses quantum vacuum fluctuations as the “propellant” source, eliminating the need for conventional on-board propellant. A discussion of spacecraft “conservation of energy” is given in Appendix A. Recent laboratory test results [2] indicate the expected thrust-to-power ratio for flight applications could be in the 0.4 – 4.0 N/kWe range, which is one to two orders of magnitude greater than current operational electric thrusters. This combination of characteristics – relatively high specific thrust combined with essentially zero on-board propellant requirement - suggest space mission performance levels significantly exceeding current capabilities.
A [Date Acquired: Oct 30, 2014] paper co-authored by Dr. White presented at the Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf where he discusses short trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons and "uncovers an energy paradox" (see Appendix A) ;).
.../... the point of this paragraph is to identify that the paradox can be created for any spacecraft using conventional propulsion as well as advanced propulsion.That ends the appendix A that "addresses" the apparent "issue" of energy conservation. There is no issue : energy conservation is broken every time we fly a rocket. Ok. Let's proceed to more interesting stuff...
A [Date Acquired: Oct 30, 2014] paper co-authored by Dr. White presented at the Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf where he discusses short trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons and "uncovers an energy paradox" (see Appendix A) ;).Quote from: Joosten & White.../... the point of this paragraph is to identify that the paradox can be created for any spacecraft using conventional propulsion as well as advanced propulsion.That ends the appendix A that "addresses" the apparent "issue" of energy conservation. There is no issue : energy conservation is broken every time we fly a rocket. Ok. Let's proceed to more interesting stuff...
Only...
Propellantless
before
O----> +energy to spend
after
O----->
Action/reaction rocket
before
oo----> + energy to spend
after
o--> o----->
expelled
So in the later case, when taking into account the mass_energy of masses, there is energy conservation overall (in any inertial frame). In the former case there is no such conservation as soon as you choose an inertial frame where speed above some threshold.
Said otherwise, in any given arbitrary inertial frame, for the classical rocket to give practical power at constant rate (pushing at constant speed) you have to replenish both energy & reaction mass from the said frame, can't have more energy than you put in. For the propellantless rocket, with thrust/power better than 1/c, then you just have to replenish in energy, and energy is light enough to be communicated from a "rest frame" to the rocket at lower cost than you get back from the rocket pushing.
Perpetual motion of the first kind possible in the propellantles case, not in the classical action/reaction case. Not the same thing. Period.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.
I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
Ok I'm getting ya. The energy budget (right term? meaning it stores well and doesn't take up a huge volume/and is easier to refuel..solar sails, batteries, reactors....)of a propellantless system is fantastic but they aren't perpetual motion machines. They run out of juice and need recharging just as a classical action/reaction rocket runs out of fuel and needs topped off. Tomato/tomaaato. I don't see any paradox.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.
I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
Propellantless scheme with better than 1/c thrust/power : either the ship taps into some energy source outside of it, or it is on its own energy and it uses tachyons. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1275281#msg1275281
A classical action/reaction scheme needs neither energy source exterior to ship nor tachyons to be energy conservative. The expelled mass that's used to get better than 1/c thrust/mass had to be accelerated at the given speed first is another way to see it, this kinetic energy of expelled mass (at the moment it is expelled) is sacrificed as well as the energy taken to give it velocity relative to ship's frame.
Great! Look at the drumhead expansion of the big end .002" copper FRP w/ resistve heating from the Cu loss!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR-4
I need to know the boundary conditions for the 0.002" copper.
Is the 0.002" copper a separate thin sheet of copper, or is the 0.002" copper thermally sprayed on the fiber-reinforced-polymer substrate and hence integrally bonded to it, or is the 0.002" copper adhered to the fiber-reinforced-polymer substrate ?
Can the 0.002" be easily peeled apart from the polymer composite substrate?
(Can one hold on to that 0.002" copper with pliers and peel it apart from the polymer composite substrate?
The single sided Copper FR4 used looks thicker than 1/16". It may be 3/32" or 1/8" but the Copper is likely not any thicker than .020". The Copper is heat bonded to the FR4 using a heat curing epoxy. I base this assumption from my attempts to remove strips of Copper from PCBs. The Copper has to heated up to about 700 F before trying to peel it off.
For what it's worth, I measure the FRP board at 0.060" and the copper cladding at 0.002". (the stuff I have here anyway)
I'd just like to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. To answer your red text: the Pioneer probes lose inertia according to MiHsC since they're moving out to lower accelerations, see longer Unruh waves, so a greater proportion of those waves are disallowed by the Hubble horizon. In the emdrive the difference is that the horizon itself changes from end to end. Both predictions are consistent with MiHsC, given the assumptions made. As for photons, special relativity (and experiment) say they have inertial mass. It is their rest mass that's zero. So it is logical and consistent to try and apply MiHsC to them. Can this be done in a way that still satisfies all the experiments performed to date? I don't know, but I'm curious about it..
I'd just like to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. To answer your red text: the Pioneer probes lose inertia according to MiHsC since they're moving out to lower accelerations, see longer Unruh waves, so a greater proportion of those waves are disallowed by the Hubble horizon. In the emdrive the difference is that the horizon itself changes from end to end. Both predictions are consistent with MiHsC, given the assumptions made. As for photons, special relativity (and experiment) say they have inertial mass. It is their rest mass that's zero. So it is logical and consistent to try and apply MiHsC to them. Can this be done in a way that still satisfies all the experiments performed to date? I don't know, but I'm curious about it..
I'd just like to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. To answer your red text: the Pioneer probes lose inertia according to MiHsC since they're moving out to lower accelerations, see longer Unruh waves, so a greater proportion of those waves are disallowed by the Hubble horizon. In the emdrive the difference is that the horizon itself changes from end to end. Both predictions are consistent with MiHsC, given the assumptions made. As for photons, special relativity (and experiment) say they have inertial mass. It is their rest mass that's zero. So it is logical and consistent to try and apply MiHsC to them. Can this be done in a way that still satisfies all the experiments performed to date? I don't know, but I'm curious about it..
Confining myself here only to the specific discussion (and not to MiHsC) of the statement that "photons are speed invariant." This statement is incorrect in general and contrary to what I was taught at MIT. It is well known that light travels at different speed in different media: Experiments show, that single photons travel through glass at the group velocity of light, which can be quite different from the speed of light in vacuum.
It is classical (Newtonian) mechanics that demands that the momentum of the photons be greater in water than in air, but measurements show that the opposite relationship holds for their velocity.
The view that photons are particles whose speed is invariant in any media and under all conditions is contradicted also by these recent experiments revealing a new state made possible with photons:
http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=13459
https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031043
I think that there is a confusion in the statement between the constant "c" (that of course, indeed, is an invariant constant) from General Relativity and the quantum description of photons in Quantum Mechanics.
General Relativity does not deal with quantum particles like photons. Particles like photons are described by Quantum Mechanics.
On a separate note, why do the Pioneer probes get to lose inertial mass as they fly away from the solar system, ...The so called "Pioneer anomaly" is very well explained by very ordinary physics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
@Rodal, a question of definition :
You often mention "torsional inverted pendulum". I fail to see in what we have an inverted pendulum here (with Eagleworks balance). Isn't an inverted pendulum a device that is kept close to a situation of unstable equilibrium ? I understand how the nonlinear couplings with different axis of rotation/displacement with flexure bearings can make chaos, but around the principal movement of rotation around z we are quite stable with the spring restoring torque, aren't we ?
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:
"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."
http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:
"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."
http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?
Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.
See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:
"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."
http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?
Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.
See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass
Indeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it. I don't care about being right. I just care about the science. And I want my bleepin' hovercar and for my boy to get to Mars.
How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.Sorry for asking, but -as the discussion is getting very technical- could someone of you make a quick update for the non-physicists among us (like myself)? is there any tangible progress, or has the device been demistified once for all?
thanks! :)
Hi there.
I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.
Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.
As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
......How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.
Hi there.
I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.
Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.
As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Revisited this Feigel paper from 2003 in more detail; attached. Page 3 is especially compelling and echoes the later Donaire, Tiggelen, Rikken (publications linked to below) paper discussed back around page 126. A quote from the Feigel paper to raise eyebrows:
"Thus modification of the modes by matter can alter the momentum of the vacuum. The latter generally vanishes due to counter propagating modes that cancel each other’s contribution. This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric."
http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=publications&id_auteur=18&clepubli=van%20Tiggelen&lang=fr
Taken at face value, this could add a momentum kick to the air (and/or dielectric) every half-cycle. How to calculate the momentum added in that case ?
Reminds me once again, of the "optimized" NASA cone that we don't know the code for.
See also news today: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/11/two-photons-interact-using-ultra-thin-glass
Indeed momentum can be transferred but there must be an asymmetry present in the system. Actually two. Without broken symmetries, there is an equal push/pull with each half cycle, amounting to zero. Since we're dealing with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, we must create an asymmetry in the discrete P and T symmetries in order to get any work done, aka thrust. It is known that the discrete symmetry of parity is broken in everyday life. See Wu experiment 1957 Nobel Prize. There is evidence that T symmetry is broken at least once too; http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html (see bottom 1964 "direct T violations") Now some perspective is required. Just because a single instance of P or T symmetry violation has been found in some interaction; that doesn't mean that those symmetries are broken everywhere. It does show precedent. Which means it is possible to be broken in other ways. That is a major caveat. This also doesn't mean that since P or T was broken, that they are broken together, which they must be for casimir momemtum transfer to be real (so they say, but who am I to argue, but I do agree because I understand the connection between symmetries and conservations). I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here more than Einstein. PT symmetry must be broken simultaneously. Chirality regularly breaks P symmetry. This presentation, slide 20: http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf (thank you Rodal for finding this) suggests that T symmetry is also broken in the fashion described, but most importantly P and T can be broken simultaneously. I have also postulated that a chiral dielectric molecule present in an asymmetric spacetime (inside the conical frustum) will also simultaneously break PT symmetry, but have not formalized my ideas and it is not worthy of being called a hypothesis, thus it is just a crazy idea I have. I acknowledge this. Be that as it may, I hope that someone smarter than I am will be inspired and take the idea and run with it.
When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions. This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material.
Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral).
The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.
This is the way QVF and ZPF before it have always been. There has never been an attempt to answer the objections about how they predict the wrong mass for the proton, or violate EEP and GR.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.
I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report. It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics. It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it. It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons.
I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests.
I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.
The QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.I'm sorry but that's not true. M-E theory makes such an explanation and QVF model does not. Sonny clearly owns that he is proposing a violation of conservation whereas M-E theory does not require this.
This is the way QVF and ZPF before it have always been. There has never been an attempt to answer the objections about how they predict the wrong mass for the proton, or violate EEP and GR.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.
I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report. It continues to insist on explaining the experimental results as being the result of the Quantum Vacuum of electron-positron virtual particles acting like a plasma that can be modeled with magnetohydrodynamics. It has not backed down at all from that claim, which remains entirely unsupported: it does not add any support to it. It takes for granted that these microwave propellant less thrusters work based on the Quantum Vacuum, it does not address the criticisms from the scientific community (except energy conservation by now creating a paradox questioning energy conservation ?) that has been raised against those claims and continues to build on this unsupported claim by further discussion of trips to the Jovian and Saturnian moons.
I would have expected instead to address the criticisms about the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis and to further analyze the tests and to comment on future tests.
I would have expected an effort to analyze the anomalous experimental results instead of trips to Enceladus with a propellant-less drive that has never been shown to operate in flight.
The QV thrust scenario is the only method available to justify measuring thrust from an otherwise sealed rf cavity and still say that momentum was conserved.I'm sorry but that's not true. M-E theory makes such an explanation and QVF model does not. Sonny clearly owns that he is proposing a violation of conservation whereas M-E theory does not require this.
The point however in regards to M-E is that though the cavity is sealed, in M-E theory it is part of the larger system including all the mass in the universe. You cannot talk about conservation in open systems and the M-E system is the universe under all circumstances.
Yes well, he's entirely wrong. He's pretending to dispense with a theory that's been through 20 years of peer review, and that is gaining an ever increasing following amongst the physics community, by simply stating it is not consistent with GR when in fact it is required by GR.......How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.
Hi there.
I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.
Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.
As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
The author uses the word chirality (instead of helical) and material asymmetry (instead of anisotropy), which is understandable in his context because he is dealing with chiral molecules in a micro context. It is obvious that the author does not mean geometrical asymmetry of an isotropic material....
When the author writes << This situation can be different however in materials that are temporally and spatially asymmetric.>> the author is explicitly discussing material asymmetry, what is known scientifically as anisotropy or aelotropy: different material properties in different intrinsic (materially embedded) directions. This should not be confused with asymmetrical geometry of an isotropic material.
Moreover, the author requires a specific type of anisotropy: helical anisotropy, a type of anisotropy found in some (chiral) polymer chains, but unusual in a macro sample (typical fabrication methods like injection molding result in isotropic macro samples even when the polymer chains are chiral).
The materials used in the EM Drives (copper) and the polymer dielectrics (Teflon and Polyethylene) are isotropic homogeneous materials and hence do not satisfy the condition required by the author.
Well a quick fact check on what you are saying finds no mention of the word "helical" or "anisotrop" or "anisotropic' or "anisotropy" in either publication. So it sounds like that is your interpretation not the information reported.........am I sensing obstructionism?
Concerning "am I sensing obstructionism?", I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate such a clarification.
Yes well, he's entirely wrong. He's pretending to dispense with a theory that's been through 20 years of peer review, and that is gaining an ever increasing following amongst the physics community, by simply stating it is not consistent with GR when in fact it is required by GR.......How many of the five competing models to explain thrust from these devices are you familiar with? I happen to agree with you about QVF and virtual particles, but there are 5 models to choose from and that's one.
Hi there.
I wouldn't put much stock in the ostensibly technical speculations that fill this thread. The results are certainly wrong and are in clear violations of macroscopic conservation of momentum. All explanations or "models" proposed to explain this (quantum plasma, virtual particles, etc.) are all based on incredibly bad physics.
Any signal these experimenters find is almost certainly due to a terrible experimental method and questionable data analysis.
As far as I can tell, along with the greater physics and engineering communities (from what I have seen), this is a fantasy device.
Here is his (Supergravity's) opinion on Woodward's theory: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1065368#msg1065368, which Supergravity has discussed at length in that thread dedicated to Woodward's thread.
I'll bet beers he hasn't read the book or the papers. I would note too, the references are all of people doing this same thing--don't know the theory, haven't read the papers, making sweeping claims.
That's not science.
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? ;)
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).The Oracle (gif above) points you in the right direction, but doesn't light the way........As I stated. Helicity and chirality are not the same thing. Please take the time to research it. As I have.
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the anisotropic product of epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? ;)
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? ;)
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
BTW, have you read it? ;D
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means. Sounds like broken symmetry to me but I wasn't sure. I didn't quite get what they were meaning by that. Also what is an AFR? There is a lot in that presentation that I didn't quite understand.
I am most familiar with Woodward's work because I dispensed with all the competition almost 10 years ago for good reasons. When someone makes a claim about Woodward or anyone else's work that I know is false, I simply post about it. It was in the context of the discussion. And I did not plug his book.I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? ;)
Um no, we've been here before. You refute every idea that isn't Woodward's. Then plug his book.
BTW, have you read it? ;D
With respect guys.
Like my pc this thread needs to restart now
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Nice!
Spectral non-reciprocity is needed: Yes, that is the condition you will get from the "coffee can" resonator in an AFR.
From what I can gather reading the rest and trying to apply it to the cavity, it should be treated as a single quantum "oscillator" w/ the conduction electron bands providing the Doppler shift required.
Spectral non-reciprocity is as far as I've gotten on a GR basis.
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means. Sounds like broken symmetry to me but I wasn't sure. I didn't quite get what they were meaning by that. Also what is an AFR? There is a lot in that presentation that I didn't quite understand.
no momentum transfer w/o a frequency change
Accelerating frame of reference
You know, that looks an awfully lot like orbital angular momentum.
That long URL is breaking the formatting.
Please replace with this short URL
http://goo.gl/WCzDMw
for the same item
Thanks
I'm only writing this for those who may appreciate a clarification on Donaire's formulation ( http://qvg2013.sciencesconf.org/conference/qvg2013/program/Donaire_qvg2013.pdf ).
Donaire explcitly requires a helical (chiral) anisotropic third order tensor (epsilon ijk) as shown in this attachment:
gamma is an antisymmetric T-P odd tensor resulting from the product of (helically anisotropic) epsilon ijk with the magnetic field B
(The word helical of course has multiple connotations, and this clarification only refers to how Donaire uses it)
helical:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Circular.Polarization.Circularly.Polarized.Light_Right.Handed.Animation.305x190.255Colors.gif)
Now, my understanding is the following: if a polymer material has chiral molecule chains, if the chains are like a "spaghetti" in random directions as usual isotropic polymers are (for example as a result of injection molding) , the chiral effect will be nullified by the random orientation of the polymer chain spaghetti.
For the Donaire effect to be mutually self-reinforcing and not self-cancelling, one needs the overall material to have a helical anisotropy.
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf). The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.
Same caveats as previously posted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1281007#msg1281007). For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.
Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.
Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
Well Brady "A" and Brady "B" truncated cone results can be explained by drifting frequency away from amplitude due to the extremely small bandwidth associated with high Q and their lack of suitable equipment as proposed by R. Ludwick
I had the thought a long time ago that the measured thrust might have to do with photon angular momentum. That's why I knew where to find the paper I linked above.
It occurs to me now that this phenomenon might hint at an explanation of the difference in thrust between Brady a" and Brady b" which differ in measured force, but otherwise very little.
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf). The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.
Same caveats as previously posted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1281007#msg1281007). For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.
Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.
Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period
7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s
10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period
15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle
18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s
20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period
25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s
41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
Where does your idea of force due to evanescent coupling with the chamber stand? I have found some information quantifying such force mathematically. The information I have found is just a start though as the geometry is quite different than that of the cavity within the vacuum chamber.
I note that another name for evanescent is "near field." The two are almost, if not completely identical but described using different terminology.
So, did you rule out evanescent coupling as a source of the measured force?
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
The only thing that takes away a perfect infinity is the cutoff at the Planck length. That takes away ridiculously small wavelengths. That is the lower bound. The upper bound is ridiculously long wavelengths. In between is a practically infinite amount of available wavelengths available. It is infinite otherwise. Not able to be exhausted.
I think you're missing his point. It's the *lowest* state of energy. For practical purposes it doesn't matter what that energy density is because you can't access any of it; to do so you would need a lower energy state to transition to and this lower energy state doesn't, by definition, exist.
if you're interested in learning more about quantum mechanics, I recommend this series of lectures by Leonard Susskind: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses .
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html (http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html)
Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
I'm not seeing it that way. A Hall thruster is not propellant less. He never used the word propellant less to describe the paradox. I see a false paradox, which was created by bad methodology and bad math.
Advanced propulsion does not equal propellant less propulsion.
"One of the issues to consider for a constant thrust system is the matter of conservation of energy."
You can't have constant thrust with action/reaction scheme, because there can be a constant expelled mass flow for only so long. So for me this is broadly "we are talking about propellantless propulsion". And indeed any such propellantless scheme has an issue of energy conservation. In the terminology of this appendix, the Hall thruster is conventional, the EMdrive (propellantless whatever) is advanced.
I see another spectacularly failed attempt at addressing the intrinsic issue with energy conservation of propellantless schemes, as bad as Shawyer's. Any serious physicist/engineer reading this appendix A will immediately see the plain absurdity of the argument, one way or another. This is not serious.
What is most perplexing is that this report follows the "Anomalous..." Brady experiment report.
...
Ron, I value your input. I must remind you to not fall in love with a theory. Fall in love with the truth. Are you trying to sell me a book or the truth?
I wasn't even responding to you. Do you have these suspicions often about people talking about you behind your back? ;)
Can you break down what your interpretation of non-reciprocity means.
Now this is interesting stuff!
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html (http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html)
Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
I want to be clear that I'm not screaming "over unity" here. I'm not tapping into the ZPE here trying to get free energy. Just because there is an infinite reservoir available of something, that doesn't mean it is all available for use. In the application described by me, you must put in energy to get thrust. So there is no free lunch. You don't get back any more than you put in. The energy of the QV is infinite in the sense that it is available everywhere to push on you.
The debate is whether it can be used for anything useful, like push on you in a particular direction, instead of all directions. The papers on Casimir momentum linked to previously, seem to suggest this is possible.
More info on the Feigel Effect:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/06/rspa.2011.0481.full.pdf (A peer review with surprising results!)
http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st3
The anomalous thrust production from an RF test device was due to the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect.
Feigel considers the following situation: a region of a dielectric fluid far from
the boundaries of its container is initially at rest (t = 0). Subsequently, strong
electrical and magnetic fields crossed at right angles to each other are applied
to the region. As the fields reach their constant final values, Eext and Bext for
electrical and magnetic fields, respectively, the fluid is accelerated by the Lorentz
forces (FLorentz ∝ vt(Eext × Bext)) to a final velocity v.
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html (http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html)
Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
After all this lengthy discussion I have been tracking for a while, what stays with me is the absolute need of more experimental results to talk about. More data points, more confirmations (or refutations).
And the video you bring, while enticing, is alas not enough. I can imagine several ways to trick a video like that, just requiring enough willingness and lack of a consciousness to do it.
Don't get me wrong. I like visual demonstrations as the next guy, it's that we only have this one so far.
But if more people replicated that... we could start becoming really intrigued.
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf). The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.
Same caveats as previously posted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1281007#msg1281007). For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.
Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.
Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period
7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s
10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period
15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle
18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s
20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period
25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s
41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Frobnicated Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous NASA report (Mean, Linear Least Squares Fit and Quadratic Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue), by Linear LS (Red) and by Quadratic LS (Green)
Power Spectral Density of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Quadratic LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*98
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(98)) = 32.67 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(98)) = 19.60 s 4*Pendulum Period
7 1/(7/(98)) = 14..00 s
12 1/(13/(98)) = 7.54 s
16 1/(16/(98)) = 6.13 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle
22 1/(22/(98)) = 4.45 s Pendulum Period
29 1/(29/(98)) = 3.38 s
34 1/(34/(98)) = 2.88 s
36 1/(36/(98)) = 2.72 s
40 1/(40/(98)) = 2.45 s
42 1/(42/(98)) = 2.33 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Thanks. But we need to explain this video before we can attribute the EM Drive thrust in general to chamber wall/cavity interactions.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html (http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html)
Video clips are near the bottom of the page. I don't see anything in the video that the EM Drive could interact with.
After all this lengthy discussion I have been tracking for a while, what stays with me is the absolute need of more experimental results to talk about. More data points, more confirmations (or refutations).
And the video you bring, while enticing, is alas not enough. I can imagine several ways to trick a video like that, just requiring enough willingness and lack of a consciousness to do it.
Don't get me wrong. I like visual demonstrations as the next guy, it's that we only have this one so far.
But if more people replicated that... we could start becoming really intrigued.
No question that we need more data and more replication.
Operating on the assumption that there is a real force generated by the EM Drive precludes the need to speculate that the data is somehow faked. If we assume that the data is faked and the force is not real then that's the end of the story. No need to go any further.
We here are operating on the assumption that the measurements are real and that the force is from a real EM Drive effect or else it is from an experimental artifact. We are pursuing both lines of investigation so the story ends when we find either the cause of the EM Drive effect or the experimental artifact that fits all of the data we have. Or when we have exhausted the data available. Without more data the latter seems likely at this point.
Ok,
Admittedly, the math for this a\has finally gotten WAY beyond me.
Could someone give me an idea of the power to motion ratio that seems to be being generated with this system, verses, say, a regular chemical rocket?
What I am trying to find out is simple; Is this system somehow generating more motion than should be possible, assuming a direct conversion of energy to motion?
In other words, is 1 calorie of energy somehow rasing 1 cubic centimeter of water's temprature higher than 1 degree celcius, or is the amount of power being used within a reasonable ratio of energy effecient conversion, say, 70% of power applied is being converted to motion, as an example?
For the moment, set aside HOW it appears to be doing what it is doing, and let's see if it violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Sorry, but you guys have gone so far beyond me mathematically, (plus, I think I may have missed a couple of equations that would have made it simpler to follow) that I am having the devil's own time trying to keep up with this thread.
@momerathe.... Momentum is a form of energy. Let's not split hairs here.
@momerathe.... Momentum is a form of energy. Let's not split hairs here.
No, it really isn't. They may be mathematically similar concepts, but they are not the same. This is not splitting hairs; without precision of expression we're not going to get anywhere.
You are pre-supposing.@momerathe.... Momentum is a form of energy. Let's not split hairs here.
No, it really isn't. They may be mathematically similar concepts, but they are not the same. This is not splitting hairs; without precision of expression we're not going to get anywhere.
Fine let's split hairs. If an object has momentum, then it is moving. If it is moving, then it has kinetic energy. And if an object has kinetic energy, then it definitely has mechanical energy... Kinetic energy is a form of energy.
....
More info on the Feigel Effect:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/10/06/rspa.2011.0481.full.pdf (A peer review with surprising results!)
http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st3
The anomalous thrust production from an RF test device was due to the Feigel–van Tiggelen effect.
Interesting paper. Some thoughts occur:
* the dielectric constant in the can will be very low. it's meant to be evacuated, after all.
* the ExB fields in the Feigel effect are steady, those in an EM wave oscillate sinusoidally. Thus the force would be continually swapping direction, and average to zero.
* If you are right, it spells the death-knell for this device as a form of propulsion. From the paper:QuoteFeigel considers the following situation: a region of a dielectric fluid far from
the boundaries of its container is initially at rest (t = 0). Subsequently, strong
electrical and magnetic fields crossed at right angles to each other are applied
to the region. As the fields reach their constant final values, Eext and Bext for
electrical and magnetic fields, respectively, the fluid is accelerated by the Lorentz
forces (FLorentz ∝ vt(Eext × Bext)) to a final velocity v.
It's a one-off impulse. It can't provide a steady thrust (again, I'm not saying that you're one of the people saying it does) unless you can keep increasing the field forever. When you turn the field off, the dielectric will stop moving. Kind of how the casimir effect provides a one-off energy gain when you bring the two plates together.
Good catch. Gotta see what changed their mind. Good thing emdrive only works when it is switched on.
Question - Has anyone thought of looking for correlations between Shawyer's thrust profile and Brady's? Be very interesting if something showed up.
The attached plots are from Shawyer's CEAS 2009 paper.
Momerathe, a warm welcome to this forum !
You are pre-supposing.
Who knows what energy actually is?
Relating to this is that it turns out that even macro objects have a very small hard to measure wave function.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
I operate as if in order to prove something is "real" you only need to observe it. Be it directly or indirectly. You don't necessarily need to measure it.It's fine to operate with whatever criteria you like, but it's also important to note what is meant when physicists precise between "real" particles and "virtual" particles. In that distinction, virtual particles cannot mediate momentum transfer because they do not have inertial nor gravitational mass, and because their lifetimes are hugely curtailed. And this is in fact why Sean Carroll loses patience with the madness--because it is stipulating in spite of what the concept actually means. Since "virtual" mean no mass, it is not going to be useful for gathering energy or generating momentum. Hence it is the field of crackpots when they make these kinds of claims.
What is measurable is limited by technology. Reality goes on being what it is, regardless of it is observable or measurable.
Still bumbling around looking for interaction mechanisms..............
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0733v1.pdf
See: p.19, F. Microwave resonators
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.I'm sorry but that's just not even close to true. I've watched this debate for more than 10 years, and what I wrote is the truth. The QVF model, and the ZPF theory before it both require virtual particles to transfer momentum and they have no mass to do this. They are both for this reason, broken theories. Momentum transfer and energy transfer using particles, certainly requires the particles have mass, and virtual particles do not--indeed they CANNOT or the universe would collapse under its own weight.
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.I'm sorry but that's just not even close to true. I've watched this debate for more than 10 years, and what I wrote is the truth. The QVF model, and the ZPF theory before it both require virtual particles to transfer momentum and they have no mass to do this. They are both for this reason, broken theories. Momentum transfer and energy transfer using particles, certainly requires the particles have mass, and virtual particles do not--indeed they CANNOT or the universe would collapse under its own weight.
And again I would remind you, that the only evidence for these mistaken beliefs is Casimir Effect, which is easily explained with no reference to ZPF or QVF at all. These are merely consistent with Casimir Force. The fact of Casimir in no way requires ZPF nor QVF. People who think this have been bamboozled, and whole books exist to give people this mistaken impression.
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al (http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf). The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped.
Same caveats as previously posted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1281007#msg1281007). For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.
Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.
Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)
Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period
7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s
10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period
15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle
18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s
20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period
25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s
41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Frobnicated Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous NASA report (Mean, Linear Least Squares Fit and Quadratic Least Squares Fit)
Autocorrelation of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue), by Linear LS (Red) and by Quadratic LS (Green)
Power Spectral Density of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Quadratic LS (Red)
horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*98
Peaks Period (seconds)
3 1/(3/(98)) = 32.67 s Pulse period
5 1/(5/(98)) = 19.60 s 4*Pendulum Period
7 1/(7/(98)) = 14..00 s
12 1/(13/(98)) = 7.54 s
16 1/(16/(98)) = 6.13 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle
22 1/(22/(98)) = 4.45 s Pendulum Period
29 1/(29/(98)) = 3.38 s
34 1/(34/(98)) = 2.88 s
36 1/(36/(98)) = 2.72 s
40 1/(40/(98)) = 2.45 s
42 1/(42/(98)) = 2.33 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
All I ever wanted to know about Maxwell's equations, and more, including evanescent waves.That's part of MIT's Electrical Engineering undergraduate course 6.013, for the other chapters and video clips also see this: http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap09.pdf (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap09.pdf)
Evanescent fields/waves are more versatile than simply providing power coupling and quantum tunneling ... I guess.
The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.
It is evident that:
1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum. The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.
2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum
3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)
4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.
The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.
It is evident that:
1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum. The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.
2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum
3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)
4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.
Hi there %)
Rodal, you should be aware and cautious of the fact that those data points are a linear piecewise reconstruction by hand from a badly compressed picture of a low definition display. While I was trying to fit as best as I could without introducing bias, I put vertex at the "visually central" position only where it made sense : it means that there is not a lot of points on a given "wave". After correction for perspective (bilinear interpolation, should be pretty good at restoring "flat" upright geometry) the data points at each .1s were obtained from this piecewise linear curve by averaging a sampling (at .01s resolution) .1s on left and right of said data point, so there is a slight smoothing (low pass filtering) going on at this stage. Even with this smoothing around, a lot of consecutive data points are given by the same segment, and I guess we have shapes more triangular than they should (triangle crests instead of sinusoidal bumps) : this surely introduces some harmonics and might explain the magnitude of this half period (twice freq.) relative to the magnitude of the central period of 4.65 (or so).
I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.
I would appreciate to know if you questioned calling the Eagleworks pendulum "inverted", for curiosity or because you object to that description and if so what would you like to call it and why. ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1282051#msg1282051 )
No vocabulary flame please just trying to understand if I missed or failed to notice something with the Eagleworks pendulum
Quote from: frobnicat.../...
I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.
I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern. I meant nothing else. Nothing about seconds. Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance.
.../...
Quote from: RodalQuote from: frobnicat.../...
I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.
I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern. I meant nothing else. Nothing about seconds. Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance.
.../...
Maybe again a problem of wording, and eye maybe. What my eyes see as pattern is "something that is similar when shifted laterally in position by some amount". And the translation needed to put the crest on the next crest and the dip on the next dip is, well, a full period of about 4.6 s, not 2.3s ? Do I have a real problem of translation here (quite possible) ?
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest". Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind. Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?
Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics. Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena. the graviton is another example of this. We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."
Momerathe, a warm welcome to this forum !
Cheers. ...
You are pre-supposing.
Who knows what energy actually is?
generations of scientists?
The important thing to remember is that energy is a property of a system. It is not "stuff", even though we often talk about it as if it is. This is, IMO, a bad habit among science communicators.
Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest". Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind. Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?
Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics. Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena. the graviton is another example of this. We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."
Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. This is the last time I ftt. I value your inputs but when you go on these anti QV rants, it is just too much. My "word by word" comments are in blue. My thoughts are that if someone has issue with a theory that's fine. But they should have a constructive rebuttal too. What is your alternate theory? Do you have a personal stake in something else that makes you just not like anything to do with EMdrive? Is it because it isn't Woodward's theory? What gives? Should we just not give EMdrive any attention whatsoever?
My apologies for any mistakes I may have made in my statements or vocabulary. :)
Very respectfully,
Mulletron
Some of my own medicine actually. I complained a lot on here about precision of language. Oh well live and learn.
Signing "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.
The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.
... we know a novel principle of physics must exist, because we know QFT is incomplete. What we don't know is if this extension is one that allows the quantum vacuum to act as a momentum sink. To be honest, I'm not even sure how one would begin to speculate about it.
to be clear - when I say "work", I mean function as a form of propulsion.
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.
I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.
I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.
I like what you're saying up there. This quote holds true, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Feynman.
I do think I have not been heard or was misunderstood. I stated that we're not pushing on the QV. The QV is pushing on us. The novel physics you speak of is allowing this to happen in a preferred direction. I postulate.
I like the brand of precise tempered reason you bring to the table.
IDK, but it sounds like, by "preferred direction", you end up meaning that we can indeed push on the QV.
It has been on my to do list to share this with the group. Dr. White lays out some math and a proof starting on slide 41 in the backup slides.We have discussed this presentation with Frobnicat about a hundred pages along. Ron Stahl has also commented on this work.
Most importantly, what I learned, is that this phenomena is described in a bunch of related ways that have different and imprecise terminology, and it is described classically and quantumly, leading to difficulty in finding clarity.
QuoteSigning "Very respectfully" a post that charges "Pretty much everything quoted above is either factually inaccurate, a logical fallacy, or a cognitive bias. The rest is weasel words. " does not make it respectful.
The subject being discussed in this thread is EM Drives and Spaceflight.
Well I am smart enough to recognize an agent provocateur on a forum whose mission is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. FUD. Because they have a conflict of interest (all things Woodward and his book). We've been here. I remember his treatment of Dr. M for example. So I calls em like I sees em. As I said, this is the last time I ftt. Giving in to the FUD creates distractions which is what they want. Back to the subject at hand, EMdrives and the science for or against them.
Thank you for your patience.
Anybody here especially gifted at math?
Well that specific impulse example from slide 43 is 40625 years...
Umberto Eco
I would be glad to hear about a sensible solution to the "energy paradox" of propellantless propulsion schemes, because if one is to believe to constant thrust/power ratio of the order of 1N/kW (and this clearly appear to be the case when proponents put forward amazing mission profiles) then one surely has a better option than messing around with nuclear fuel (be it for fission or fusion) : use auxiliary thrusters on a fast rotating shaft, extractThat is exactly why. No one involved in this sort of work wants to be associated with the free energy crowd, even if what they're working on might be a way to harvest a new energy source. they don't even want association with such things, in just the same way that all advanced propulsion seeks to distance itself completely from anyone bandying about the term "anti-gravity". That term was ridiculed into uselessness back in the 50's and 60's so everyone avoids it like the plague.freeunlimited energy, usefreeunlimited energy to power main thruster => infinite ISP rocket. . .
I don't know why people doing the mission profiles at 1N/kW are not advocating this obvious consequence of 1N/kW. Save maybe that "unlimited energy" would be immediately labelled crackpottery while "unlimited momentum". . .
. . .However, we know that QFT is incomplete, requiring reconciliation with General Relativity. . .It's interesting that one of the features of the Standard Model is that it does not include gravity and so is not background independent. I think one of the most remarkable issues that rise out of the advanced propulsion field is Woodward's theory about the electron. His electron model is the best I have ever seen and the only electron model that actually accounts for all the components and needs necessary to such a model. It is the only electron modeI'm aware of that actually obtains as a workable model without stipulated qualifications and limitations, and it is easy to test.
I think the main reason why intelligent people do make statements like the constant thrust/power ratio, has nothing to do with science or engineering and nobody here will like this reason, hence my reference to a book from Umberto Eco at the end of this post.I think you think these jobs are more fragile than they really are. All of SLS is a jobs program. It does't ever have to work. It just needs to provide jobs. Once it's complete, it should provide launch at about 10X the cost that Falcon does, so who in their right mind would use it? No one. It's a job's program. Congress is completely willing to sidetrack all of NASA's human spaceflight funding in order to provide those jobs, so obviously the jobs are not fragile.
The reason some people at JSC did this is because they wanted to keep their job in Houston after the closure of the Space shuttle progam several years ago.
I would be glad to hear about a sensible solution to the "energy paradox" of propellantless propulsion schemes, because if one is to believe to constant thrust/power ratio of the order of 1N/kW (and this clearly appear to be the case when proponents put forward amazing mission profiles) then one surely has a better option than messing around with nuclear fuel (be it for fission or fusion) : use auxiliary thrusters on a fast rotating shaft, extractThat is exactly why. No one involved in this sort of work wants to be associated with the free energy crowd, even if what they're working on might be a way to harvest a new energy source. they don't even want association with such things, in just the same way that all advanced propulsion seeks to distance itself completely from anyone bandying about the term "anti-gravity". That term was ridiculed into uselessness back in the 50's and 60's so everyone avoids it like the plague.freeunlimited energy, usefreeunlimited energy to power main thruster => infinite ISP rocket. . .
I don't know why people doing the mission profiles at 1N/kW are not advocating this obvious consequence of 1N/kW. Save maybe that "unlimited energy" would be immediately labelled crackpottery while "unlimited momentum". . .
.....
This was for one Shawyer's thrust vs power graph. I prefer to concentrate on Brady, as someone put it (you ? Aero ? Mulletron ?) it is better documented, and maybe of more reliable value. I don't completely give up on this "warm jet effect". Even if it seems unlikely it would have been gone unnoticed and gave results somehow in agreements between different labs, the alternatives are either as much hazardous (magnetic couplings) or more hard to swallow (axions anyone ?)
We don't even know from the experimenters the most basic geometric characteristics of their device. Who know (save them) how much they are tinkering with things before "it works", what kind of "secret recipe" procedures are followed and in which we could maybe see some confirmation or invalidation of such or such possible explanation. One thing stands out : the effect is hard to get at, and that's not because of ultra faint magnitude (µN when nN are "routinely" investigated with short range gravitation studies). So what makes it so hard to make it reproducible and reliable ? Driving a high Q at resonant frequency ? Mmm. Well. Maybe. Only maybe.
My latest derivation for the warm air jet hypothesis : F in function of microwave volumetric heating Pow and tau time constant of the rise/fall
F = Cf/rho * ((2*p*Tau)/V)^0.5 * (Pow/(C*T))^1.5
That is by using numerical values for almost constants ( 20°C ambient ... )
F = 1.41e-6 * 1/sqrt(V) * sqrt(Tau) * Pow^1.5
V=0.027m^3 Tau=2s Pow=4W yields F=97µN
But that needs tinkering until the leak area A is small enough (but not stoppered) to give high thrust, but big enough so that Tau is below some level (otherwise you see a ramp up). How much tinkering is going on ?
F = 9.7e-12 * Pow^2/A
Tau = 4.74e-11 * V*Pow/A^2
Intuitively I'm in favor of some electromagnetic explanation, but think this is still worth investigating.
Second column. Read it well, read it again, check the maths.... this is both gross and subtle.
something really outrageous is going on in this Appendix. Second column. Read it well, read it again, check the maths.... this is both gross and subtle.You mean what people call the "kinetic energy paradox"? That kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed?
.....
Frobnicat, I haven't heard about your warm air propulsion model since your last message reproduced above.
I'm not clear as to what should be the forcing function as a function of time to input for the pendulum analysis, as per your model
For this
F = 1.41e-6 * 1/sqrt(V) * sqrt(Tau) * Pow^1.5
appears as a constant with tau = 2 seconds.
What is your forcing function for your warm air propulsion model as an explicit function of time?
hmmm... don´t the photons lose energy with each bounce? Yes, you will say that they remain at light speed after each bounce... which is true... but maybe in there we see the weird duality of light as particle and wave? If you see each photon alone, they won´t lose energy, but considering the whole light wave, it will?
...Please, please Frobnicat, you are going too fast for me.
more energy to go from 100 to 101 than to go from 0 to 1. Because of the square.
100² to 101² -> needs to add 201
0² to 1² -> needs to add 1
Wow, again, seems paradoxical, as this is the same "thing", just seen from a different way...
...Please, please Frobnicat, you are going too fast for me.
more energy to go from 100 to 101 than to go from 0 to 1. Because of the square.
100² to 101² -> needs to add 201
0² to 1² -> needs to add 1
Wow, again, seems paradoxical, as this is the same "thing", just seen from a different way...
- Nobody should add kinetic energy in different reference frames. That's not a paradox, that's plain and classical mechanics. A consequence is that nobody should use trust/power ratio.
- There is no ongoing conspiracy at NASA, only usual business in an agency that consumes 2 billions each years and wants to survive. To survive it needs people support.
People enjoy Startrek stuff (I am not joking, I really mean it). So NASA (and Discovery TV, and a handful of SF authors and some NASA consultants) feed people with the stuff they ask. That's a profitable business.
If one want serious science papers, there are many reputable sources. Science journals mostly, not conference papers, not pre-print servers, not self cited papers.
I know it may sound harsh, I don't want to be harsh, sorry for my lack of writing gift. This whole thread is going too far, intelligent people see artifacts and meaning where there is none. I am very sorry about that.
To really get to the bottom of the issue of "paradoxical mission profiles" (if they are or not is not unanimous.... in Nasa's defense in both the Brady et al paper and the Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster Technology paper, they play it safe with 0.4 N/kWe) ...
To really get to the bottom of the issue of "paradoxical mission profiles" (if they are or not is not unanimous.... in Nasa's defense in both the Brady et al paper and the Human Outer Solar System Exploration via Q-Thruster Technology paper, they play it safe with 0.4 N/kWe) ...
I don't know if having more (properly accounted) kinetic energy than (properly accounted) spent energy is paradoxical but think there is near unanimity that this is not scientifically correct. This wide unanimous crowd is simply unanimously ignoring those research.
I can't let say that 0.4 N/kWe is "playing safe" : first a convincing reproducible experiment showing such stable level for a long duration (say, an hour) is still unreported that I know of, second and most importantly anything above .00000333 N/kW (photon rocket) is not safe as far as energy conservation is concerned.
* I wrote about what you stated at 12:01 AM in the server time, it is still quoted above. Your last post (09:53 AM) is about a different issue.......Please, please Frobnicat, you are going too fast for me.
more energy to go from 100 to 101 than to go from 0 to 1. Because of the square.
100² to 101² -> needs to add 201
0² to 1² -> needs to add 1
Wow, again, seems paradoxical, as this is the same "thing", just seen from a different way...
- Nobody should add kinetic energy in different reference frames. That's not a paradox, that's plain and classical mechanics. A consequence is that nobody should use trust/power ratio.
The problem in Appendix A is that there is an error, a huge error, when calculating the Hall thruster in the frame of CMB : the change in kinetic energy is given by initial state minus final state. Which yields a value higher than the spent onboard energy. BUT but but, the change in kinetic energy should be the other way around, final state minus initial !!!
Which would yield a negative value, that is obviously less than spent energy. So their calculation is plain wrong, ...
...
Now, granted, you'd need a serious power plant to power this thing, and you'd probably want to tie a few dozen of them together in a frame of some sort, but it should get you to near relativistic speeds for far less energy cost than a rocket.
Unless I'm missing something critical.
But in money terms maybe it's more clear : doing a financial operation where a cash investment of 1000$ (spent energy) makes that your portfolio values (kinetic energy) goes from 100000$ before to 10000$ after you would not say that the change in portfolio value is before-after 100000-10000=90000 and you had 90 over unit gain factor. You would do after-before and see that you have a change of -90000 and lost 90 times the cash invested : this is not really over unit gain.
If you feel they made a mistake, maybe the best is to write to the paper authors...
...* I wrote about what you stated at 12:01 AM in the server time, it is still quoted above. Your last post (09:53 AM) is about a different issue.
* Unfortunately for me physics is not my professional domain, so I don't understand your reasoning (09:53 AM) of a craft that has a speed increasing and a decreasing kinetic energy. (Ef - Ei) < 0 => Ef < Ei.
* Anyway I still think the fact kinetic energy can't be added or substracted on different reference frames, applies to what you say in your last point (end-start vs start-end)...The rocket has different speeds at start and end points, so it's different inertial frames.
* If you feel they made a mistake, maybe the best is to write to the paper authors...
It doesn't make sense to me to read that Woodward's electron model is"easy to test", and then read that "if the model is correct", that all HSF would be transformed and enabled, and physics would change, and all that.I agree--it doesn't make sense. Woodward's work gives validation, but what one needs is replication. Since there is no money out there for this, we have the situation we have. The ZPFers are handling all the money, such as from DARPA. That's what I'd like to change if I can find a PI for a grant.
Shouldn't all this "easy"testing be done first? And then all that transformation?
So in the end this is just "free energy in disguise". Think it's not good to have things in disguise in science, this is not sane. I'm ready to hear that those thrusters emit tachyons (negative energy). I'm ready to hear that quantum vacuum is like criss-crossing asphalt roads at all velocities and you can choose to push on the ones that are slow relative to you, taking at low energy cost (possibly 0) the intrinsic energy from those conveyor belts. That would be crazy but that would be all right : any idea without hidden secrets or "mysteries" or mystifications has a right to be expressed in science. . .Well you've hit on another of my pet peeves. Neither QVM nor ZPF has an explanation that preserves conservation. This is why it is specifically called a conservation violation in the Eagleworks literature. Woodward has taken the opposite tack--he claims that since such a high thrust efficiency device needs to generate temporary negative mass, conservation is preserved. First of all, the energy and momentum is accounted for by the enhanced entropy of the entire system--the universe--and secondly that mass has negative inertia, so when you sum the local system, you don't get the obvious violation. This is at least an attempt to balance the books and something the QV folks can't do.
According to Woodward, this entire method is flawed and the correct way to do the cal is to "sum the instantaneous frames of rest" which is to say, use the tools of GR. He handled this objection in some detail a couple years ago and since that time, one of the guys over at T-P managed to do the same calc without the GR tools and get the same answer, but this is not to say one ought expect to use the wrong tools and get the right answers. This kind of calc needs to use GR since the frame the thruster is in is accelerating and is non-inertial. And yes, you are completely correct that the trouble comes when you " add up kinetic energy in different reference frames" however, GR does include the tools to do this properly. This requires a transform that is well beyond my training.something really outrageous is going on in this Appendix. Second column. Read it well, read it again, check the maths.... this is both gross and subtle.You mean what people call the "kinetic energy paradox"? That kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/kinetic-energy-and-frames-of-reference.534883/
It is what you already mention as a paradox as well as GoatGuy and it is also used in this linked paper.
What physicists say, is that one can't add up kinetic energy in different reference frames (nothing to do with relativity).
In my opinion every people using a metric like trust/power for several segments of the same travel, are doing exactly this mistake...adding kinetic energy in different reference frames
There we are : this is not a paradox or a problem with propellentless schemes, this is a paradox inherent to any spacecraft when energy is accounted for in an inertial frame fast enough relative to those typical delta Vs, because any of those has a Ts such that 1/Ts < high speeds, so surely any spacecraft can (apparently) provide more energy in kinetic form than is spent by the onboard generator. This is not a paradox with Q-thrusters, this is a paradox with relativity of velocities and how kinetic energy is accounted for in different inertial frame (we all know this is a messy business with all this square thing and non additivity...)So far as I'm aware, this above is completely correct. On his reading list, Woodward demonstrated this seeming violation occurs with any sort of thruster on a swing arm. And as I said, his solution was to "sum the instantaneous frames of rest" which is some sort of transform used in GR. It was in fact his demonstration that this seeming violation occurs with any thruster that sold me we need a difference in kind to get this kind of performance, and the difference is of course that mass with negative inertia makes an unusual contribution, and can account for the trouble.
On his reading list, Woodward demonstrated this seeming violation occurs with any sort of thruster on a swing arm.
one of the guys over at T-P managed to do the same calc without the GR tools and get the same answer, but this is not to say one ought expect to use the wrong tools and get the right answers.
There we are : this is not a paradox or a problem with propellentless schemes, this is a paradox inherent to any spacecraft when energy is accounted for in an inertial frame fast enough relative to those typical delta Vs, because any of those has a Ts such that 1/Ts < high speeds, so surely any spacecraft can (apparently) provide more energy in kinetic form than is spent by the onboard generator. This is not a paradox with Q-thrusters, this is a paradox with relativity of velocities and how kinetic energy is accounted for in different inertial frame (we all know this is a messy business with all this square thing and non additivity...)So far as I'm aware, this above is completely correct. On his reading list, Woodward demonstrated this seeming violation occurs with any sort of thruster on a swing arm. And as I said, his solution was to "sum the instantaneous frames of rest" which is some sort of transform used in GR. It was in fact his demonstration that this seeming violation occurs with any thruster that sold me we need a difference in kind to get this kind of performance, and the difference is of course that mass with negative inertia makes an unusual contribution, and can account for the trouble.
See Forward's analysis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/3/351.full.pdf+htmlAs I have pointed out previously, this requires anisotropy, and the author makes it clear (even in the title). "Momentum Transfer between Quantum Vacuum and Anisotropic Medium"
Peculiar indeed.
In most conventional electromagnetic media, the quantum vacuum inside possesses a universal symmetry and hence has no influence on the motion of the media. However, for a Faraday chiral material,the macroscopically observable mechanical effect, due to the breaking of the universal symmetry of the quantum vacuum may appear
http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/3/351.full.pdf+htmlAs I have pointed out previously, this requires anisotropy, and the author makes it clear (even in the title). "Momentum Transfer between Quantum Vacuum and Anisotropic Medium"
Peculiar indeed.
The author further points out:QuoteIn most conventional electromagnetic media, the quantum vacuum inside possesses a universal symmetry and hence has no influence on the motion of the media. However, for a Faraday chiral material,the macroscopically observable mechanical effect, due to the breaking of the universal symmetry of the quantum vacuum may appear
What the author is discussing does not apply to the EM drives researched by NASA Eagleworks because the materials used are isotropic. (Copper in all cases and in some cases Teflon or Polyethylene dielectrics -injection molded-)
The EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/3/351.full.pdf+htmlAs I have pointed out previously, this requires anisotropy, and the author makes it clear (even in the title). "Momentum Transfer between Quantum Vacuum and Anisotropic Medium"
Peculiar indeed.
The author further points out:QuoteIn most conventional electromagnetic media, the quantum vacuum inside possesses a universal symmetry and hence has no influence on the motion of the media. However, for a Faraday chiral material,the macroscopically observable mechanical effect, due to the breaking of the universal symmetry of the quantum vacuum may appear
What the author is discussing does not apply to the EM drives researched by NASA Eagleworks because the materials used are isotropic. (Copper in all cases and in some cases Teflon or Polyethylene dielectrics -injection molded-)
If you looook haaarder, it says anisotropic quantum-vacuum fluctuation field to a Faraday (magnetic) chiral material.
The author is speaking to the anisotropic electromagnetic properties of the material. Not the isotropy of the solidified melt mix. In fact, not linked to here because it is an afterthought, but I've seen references to this kind of effect in disordered materials in the literature.
"Here, we present an effect of the quantum vacuum contribution
to the macroscopic mechanical properties of an anisotropic material (Faraday
chiral material), in which an anisotropic electromagnetic environment could be built
up, and hence the universal symmetry of the quantum vacuum could be broken."
Injection molding does nothing to ensure polymer ordering, aka alignment. An injection molding machine doesn't do any poling.
This paper isn't an exact match to the conditions within emdrive, but demonstrates the diversity of this interaction which is cropping up in other places across the literature.....eg. Robustness.
The EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.
@ThinkerX The energy of light is proportional to the frequency. Higher frequency, higher energy photons. If some of that energy is given up to something else, the frequency is lower.
All of your lazers and power plants are very massive. The device will hardly move. However, place your lazers on a handy airless planet, and aim them at a solar sail, and you can get the thing to move.
QuoteThe EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.
@Mulletron - That does not mean necessarily that you're on the wrong track, just that our current understanding is not sufficiently complete to attribute the measured force. (I know, that sounds like gobbally-gook) :)
QuoteThe EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.
@Mulletron - That does not mean necessarily that you're on the wrong track, just that our current understanding is not sufficiently complete to attribute the measured force. (I know, that sounds like gobbally-gook) :)
Well I accepted the challenge. It took me 30 minutes to find that both extruded PE and PTFE solidify to a semicrystalline structure. Therefore they are anisotropic. If they were amorphous, they'd be isotropic.
So I've established that the materials used in the the Brady et al test campaigns are both chiral polymers and they are both anisotropic due to their semicrystalline structure.
I'll save you the trip to the Oracle this time.
See for yourself. Just google crystallization of polymers.
Also google chiral polymer tacticity.
A neat resource I found:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/anisotropy.htm
Also two exciting words: lamella twisting, here's helical chirality in PE
http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/scm/scm4
Chirality=proven true
mechanical anisotropy=proven true
electromagnetic or magnetic anisotropy=not proven true, this is where spontaneous pt symmetry breaking comes in. Been working on this one for a while.
Extrusion anisotropy takes place at the exterior surface of the extruded rod in regions of very high shear near the extruder walls.
I recall that other members (not you ? or me) in this forum were of the opinion that the following picture showed that the (pink colored) "dielectric" originally in the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone was a huge injection molded piece. I was surprised at the time, and I am still surprised that they would use such a huge piece (essentially a significant portion of the cavity would be taken by the dielectric). Such a huge rod of dielectric would be most likely injection molded rather than extruded.QuoteExtrusion anisotropy takes place at the exterior surface of the extruded rod in regions of very high shear near the extruder walls.
Good enough for me! I could care less about the interior of the bulk. This supports your previous observations about the limited utility of a monolithic dielectric slug vs rolled thin films.
Thanks for your valuable contribution from your experience. As they say, knowledge is cheap, but experience is priceless.
No. The paper says it was 2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE discs. That pink area looks to me like a copper cylinder structure to hold those disks in place.
Do you see why my CAD had 6.25" for the minimum diameter possible for the small end now?
No. The paper says it was 2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE discs. Aero pointed this out I think. That pink area looks to me like a copper cylinder structure to hold those disks in place.
Do you see why my CAD had 6.25" for the minimum diameter possible for the small end now?
OK, thanks for reminding me. So is your interpretation that there are two disks 6.25" OD. Is 1.06" the thickness of the disks? or is it the Inner Diameter of a hole in an annular disk and is the thickness unspecified? (I would presume the former as it would be unusual not to specify the thickness).
These dimensions make much more sense.
QUESTION: If you were to place a dielectric in the EM Drives for your QV purposes, where would you preferentially place it: at the small diameter or the big diameter end and why?
Reply #3038 on: November 08, 2014, 04:33:35 PM
...oops, I see 93143 answered faster. Glad to hear someone of the million people...
Reply #3013 on: November 07, 2014, 03:40:29 PM
Your pragmatic inertial frame would be the galaxy, wouldn't it?
What the author is discussing does not apply to the EM drives researched by NASA Eagleworks because the materials used are isotropic. (Copper in all cases and in some cases Teflon or Polyethylene dielectrics -injection molded-)
An anisotropic electromagnetic environment that can be created inside a Faraday chiral material may cause breaking of the universal symmetry of vacuum mode structure and hence lead to a nonzero electromagnetic momentum density of the quantum vacuum. A novel quantum vacuum effect (i.e., transfer of linear momentum from an anisotropic quantum-vacuum fluctuation field to a Faraday chiral material) is predicted. This is a macroscopic quantum vacuum mechanical effect that may provide us with new insight into the electromagnetic structures of quantum vacuum fluctuation fields inside anisotropic artificial materials.
As the quantum vacuum in an anisotropic electromagnetic environment has a nonzero momentum, the linear momentum transfer between the quantum vacuum and a gyrotropic chiral material can take place.
this vacuum effect may provide us with new insight into electromagnetic structures of quantum vacuum fluctuation inside artificial anisotropic materials, and we may be able to utilize this mechanical effect to develop sensitive, accurate measurement technologies. In addition, such quantum vacuum effects may lead to new topics regarding fundamental physical problems, such as field quantization, inertia of photon’s spin (in spin-rotation coupling) and some relevant quantum optical effects inside composite materials.
So I've established that the materials used in the the Brady et al test campaigns are both chiral polymers and they are both anisotropic due to their semicrystalline structure.
So I've established that the materials used in the the Brady et al test campaigns are both chiral polymers and they are both anisotropic due to their semicrystalline structure.
Woah, there, kemosabe!
That sounds like an assertion? Like where, 'zackly does the Brady bunch inform us that they depend on these chiral polymers?
Yeah I'm hearing you on pseudo-chirality. The monomers aren't chiral, but the repeating units are. We're lucky both PE and PTFE feature those Carbon atoms. Else, chirality would most certainly be dead. In the end, they are chiral. I think your ideas above could be ground breaking stuff. If correct. Certainly an improvement.I would like somebody to conduct an experiment to show whether indeed the quantum vacuum can impart momentum to a chiral polymer. It sounds unphysical to me that this can happen (I interpret the Casimir effect as due to van der Waal forces and not to the QV).
....
Have also to check the heat(t) at the inner surface of copper (might be higher/faster than expected) as a rise of temperature of 10° on 100cm^3 can give as much "oomph" as 5° on 200cm^3 or 1° on 1000cm^3, so lack of thermal conductivity of air might not be the relevant factor to set the typical Tau. + some heat equations...
.....
Maybe if you are working on heat conduction aspects at the cavity's wall, this might help me if you have an idea of the Temp(t) of the inner skin. I know that copper is a very good thermal, conductor. The epoxy behind the (probably) much thinner copper of PCBs end plate not that much. The RF power is dissipated in the first µm depth skin. What gives instant temperature for the air molecules hitting the inner walls ? This could be a fast alternative to volumetric humid air heating.
No. The paper says it was 2, 6.25" x 1.06" PE discs. Aero pointed this out I think. That pink area looks to me like a copper cylinder structure to hold those disks in place.
Do you see why my CAD had 6.25" for the minimum diameter possible for the small end now?
Reply #3038 on: November 08, 2014, 04:33:35 PM
...oops, I see 93143 answered faster. Glad to hear someone of the million people...Reply #3013 on: November 07, 2014, 03:40:29 PM
Your pragmatic inertial frame would be the galaxy, wouldn't it?
So what am I, chopped liver?
To elaborate, with words, not math, but hey:
The phrase "sum the instantaneous frames of rest" has the same mathematical meaning as does the phrase "add up kinetic energy in different reference frames".
The Appendix spacecraft is said to go from 0 mph to 1 mph, in its reference frame. It doesn't go from 671 mph to 672 mph, except as a math exercise of intellectual interest, not as a matter pf pragmatic space travel. Besides 672 mph is not a relativistic speed, and neither is 672 km/s.
There is not a line of mathematical reasoning which adds up kinetic energy in different, presumably aritrarily preferred, reference frames, and results inexorably in a new type of propulsion.
....
Have also to check the heat(t) at the inner surface of copper (might be higher/faster than expected) as a rise of temperature of 10° on 100cm^3 can give as much "oomph" as 5° on 200cm^3 or 1° on 1000cm^3, so lack of thermal conductivity of air might not be the relevant factor to set the typical Tau. + some heat equations...
.....
Maybe if you are working on heat conduction aspects at the cavity's wall, this might help me if you have an idea of the Temp(t) of the inner skin. I know that copper is a very good thermal, conductor. The epoxy behind the (probably) much thinner copper of PCBs end plate not that much. The RF power is dissipated in the first µm depth skin. What gives instant temperature for the air molecules hitting the inner walls ? This could be a fast alternative to volumetric humid air heating.
....
Have also to check the heat(t) at the inner surface of copper (might be higher/faster than expected) as a rise of temperature of 10° on 100cm^3 can give as much "oomph" as 5° on 200cm^3 or 1° on 1000cm^3, so lack of thermal conductivity of air might not be the relevant factor to set the typical Tau. + some heat equations...
.....
Maybe if you are working on heat conduction aspects at the cavity's wall, this might help me if you have an idea of the Temp(t) of the inner skin. I know that copper is a very good thermal, conductor. The epoxy behind the (probably) much thinner copper of PCBs end plate not that much. The RF power is dissipated in the first µm depth skin. What gives instant temperature for the air molecules hitting the inner walls ? This could be a fast alternative to volumetric humid air heating.
... if the ends were made of extremely thin copper bonded on PCBoard, there are serious questions as to why would anybody do this aside from trying to maximize artificial heating of the ends
Yeah I'm hearing you on pseudo-chirality. The monomers aren't chiral, but the repeating units are. We're lucky both PE and PTFE feature those Carbon atoms. Else, chirality would most certainly be dead. In the end, they are chiral. I think your ideas above could be ground breaking stuff. If correct. Certainly an improvement.I would like somebody to conduct an experiment to show whether indeed the quantum vacuum can impart momentum to a chiral polymer. It sounds unphysical to me that this can happen (I interpret the Casimir effect as due to van der Waal forces and not to the QV).
But, hey, I see all these theoretical papers you have uncovered, why don't they show this effect in an actual experiment?
For these reasons, we hope that the quantum vacuum momentum transfer investigated in this paper can be tested experimentally in the near future.
don't get what that reference to butchery might mean
...a bigger plastic bottle (PET) went deformed by the heat (varying volume of cavity) and went frankly hot. Can't tell if the PET was heated by the air or if PET was the coupling material. Don't know that plastic (non polar I think ?) could heat on microwave.....
I don't know why I argue at length, we agree on that (I think).
What is "your pragmatic inertial frame" depend on the dynamical system that's to be predicted but what is for sure is that you have the exact same predicted results whatever the inertial frame chosen (why "arbitrary frame") and even accelerated reference frame (done properly). There is often a "natural" frame that makes the calculations more elegant and simple and results easier to interpret, but such frame is still just an arbitrary choice to compare all velocities to the one and same, well, reference.
Ok...so if I correctly grasp the last page or two worth of posts(doubtful), the 'EM Drive' as tested by Eagleworks, is probably bogus, with the 'thrust' generated being the result of thermal heating, and this assessment may apply to Brady's design as well? (According to Doctor Rodal and Frobnicat).
Though Mulletron, at least for the time being is still exploring Quantum options.
I can see that the experimenters recognize heat contributions to the thrust plots. Look at the screen shot below. Table 2 isn't reporting 130uN of thrust for TE012, it is reporting just 55uN, after subtracting artifacts from the total 130uN peak.
They recognize da heat, which is apparent by that gentle rise over 30 seconds followed by a gentle fall over 30 seconds.
The sudden rise and sudden fall is the real thrust here.
.../...
I can see that the experimenters recognize heat contributions to the thrust plots. Look at the screen shot below. Table 2 isn't reporting 130uN of thrust for TE012, it is reporting just 55uN, after subtracting artifacts from the total 130uN peak.
They recognize da heat, which is apparent by that gentle rise over 30 seconds followed by a gentle fall over 30 seconds.
The sudden rise and sudden fall is the real thrust here.
.../...
If it were that sudden, why there is not the characteristic overshoot magnitude clearly visible for the calibration pulses (of similar magnitude) that are known to be "instantaneous" ?
You must see there is a huge difference between the result of rectangular force signals of calibration pulses vs thrusts pulses : the explanation is that for the later the rise is steep but not as steep. Still working on quantitative estimates but this is strongly hinting a time constant (time to asymptotically reach the plateau) that is likely much higher than anything electromagnetic in nature. Likely below 2 seconds but likely more than .1 s (analysis will tell).
I can see that the experimenters recognize heat contributions to the thrust plots. Look at the screen shot below. Table 2 isn't reporting 130uN of thrust for TE012, it is reporting just 55uN, after subtracting artifacts from the total 130uN peak.
They recognize da heat, which is apparent by that gentle rise over 30 seconds followed by a gentle fall over 30 seconds.
The sudden rise and sudden fall is the real thrust here.
.../...
If it were that sudden, why there is not the characteristic overshoot magnitude clearly visible for the calibration pulses (of similar magnitude) that are known to be "instantaneous" ?
You must see there is a huge difference between the result of rectangular force signals of calibration pulses vs thrusts pulses : the explanation is that for the later the rise is steep but not as steep. Still working on quantitative estimates but this is strongly hinting a time constant (time to asymptotically reach the plateau) that is likely much higher than anything electromagnetic in nature. Likely below 2 seconds but likely more than .1 s (analysis will tell).
There is an overshoot with the "thrust" impulse. Why do you feel it needs to be the same magnitude as the cal pulse overshoot? Do they share the same dynamics? I would say not.
The test article and the calibration system overcome the inertia of the test rig in different ways.
Well it does take time for energy to build up in the cavity.
The fact that there is a sudden rise and fall when rf is on and off is enough.
Well it does take time for energy to build up in the cavity.
Yes it does. On the order of Q * typical_length / c = 20000 * .3 / 300000000 = 20 µs
We are not talking about a delay bellow ms here. Admittedly we must provide a clear quantitative estimation but there is no question that the difference in overshoot is due to way higher than 1ms delay in rise (and fall) times.
Well it does take time for energy to build up in the cavity.
Yes it does. On the order of Q * typical_length / c = 20000 * .3 / 300000000 = 20 µs
We are not talking about a delay bellow ms here. Admittedly we must provide a clear quantitative estimation but there is no question that the difference in overshoot is due to way higher than 1ms delay in rise (and fall) times.
For clarity's sake, you're saying that the impulse delays could be caused by the amplifier warming up, and the undershoot at lower power levels, rather than higher level ones, is evidence of that?
The "undershoot" signature appears to occur more for the low power experiment (at 2.6 W) than for the higher power (around 16.8W) :
- This would be a natural parameter dependency for a thermal effect.
Meaning the thermal artefacts (be it at the place of the amplifier or the thruster) takes longer to reach a plateau at lower powers, so that thermal explanations are in good qualitative agreement.
1) Someone is stating that we don't know the mass on the inverted torsional pendulum. This is an incorrect statement. Paul March gave us the mass.
Quote1) Someone is stating that we don't know the mass on the inverted torsional pendulum. This is an incorrect statement. Paul March gave us the mass.
Well I really need the mass of the test articles. The mass of the pendulum and the test articles would be so useful. Was that provided?
You see, if I had the mass of the test article, I could work out all the other math, like Delta V and put a check on that specific impulse I found.
"And I just verified that Paul March wrote that the supported mass was a maximum of 25 lbm. That is 11.3398 kgm"
1) Paul March posted the information in this NASASpaceFlight.com forum and not in the Next big future webpage. Next big future just copied the information from this forum into their webpage. They recognized this by stating at the outset: "Paul March ... is providing information about the experiments on the NASA spaceflight forum." There is no need to give any credit to Next Big Future, on the contrary, it is Next Big Future that owes credit to NASASpaceFlight.com and to Paul March. NASASpaceFlight forum is the true source of this mass information.
2) I do not recall information for mass of individual items. The total mass, dimensions and stiffness is what is required for the lowest natural frequency of the pendulum. Individual motion of items on the pendulum can only occur at much higher frequencies (and lower amplitudes) than the lowest natural frequency of the pendulum
1) Paul March posted the information in this NASASpaceFlight.com forum and not in the Next big future webpage. Next big future just copied the information from this forum into their webpage. They recognized this by stating at the outset: "Paul March ... is providing information about the experiments on the NASA spaceflight forum." There is no need to give any credit to Next Big Future, on the contrary, it is Next Big Future that owes credit to NASASpaceFlight.com and to Paul March. NASASpaceFlight forum is the true source of this mass information.
2) I do not recall information for mass of individual items. The total mass, dimensions and stiffness is what is required for the lowest natural frequency of the pendulum. Individual motion of items on the pendulum can only occur at much higher frequencies (and lower amplitudes) than the lowest natural frequency of the pendulum
Are you using that 25lb figure as total mass? Because that is just how much weight it can hold. That isn't the mass of anything.
we nominally restrict ourselves to a 25 pound total load limit on the torque pendulum arm
we nominally restrict ourselves to a 25 pound total load limit on the torque pendulum arm
And how much lower than 25 lb do you think that the total mass on the pendulum would be and why?
This quote:Quotewe nominally restrict ourselves to a 25 pound total load limit on the torque pendulum arm
is from NBF dated 11Sep14.
Where is it on here from March for sake of clarity?
Your comments:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1275117#msg1275117
22Oct14.
Indeed NBF references NSF, but it is about electrical issues. First linked to. But they have slides from March which contain the mechanical data, which weren't posted here.
I don't want to start a war over this, but I remain correct when I asserted that we don't know the mass of the things inside the test chamber. So how can we blindly throw numbers at them? We can't just say 25lb/11.34kg based off of the max weight it can hold.
I'm not the first to comment on here about blindly throwing numbers at assumptions. It ends up being a waste of time and sends everyone on a tangent based on bad info.QuoteAnd how much lower than 25 lb do you think that the total mass on the pendulum would be and why?
There is no "think" about this, just what the mass actually really is.
You can't pass off quantitative results derived from qualitative data.
We don't know the mass. That is the point. I don't mean to be mean. I'm sticking to the facts.
The methodology you describe is like guessing how massive my truck is based on its cargo capacity.
If you had the data, you'd be right.
I'm finished here.
I don't care about the pendulum frequency. The amplitudes are important. The force required to move a pendulum of x mass (in the first place) varies wildly depending on mass. The kinetic energy and potential energy of a moving pendulum varies wildly depending on the mass of the pendulum as well.
None of my screen shots previously, pointing out the "bounce" had anything to do with frequency, but the amplitudes were different.
Here's something for the folks out there to play with. Take 2 pendulums, give them wildly different masses. Set them in opposite motion. Timing is everything......You'll see frequency is unaffected by mass, yet PE and KE are. Also getting the pendulum to move in the first place is very much dependent on mass. F=MA as they say.
Let your computer do the work for you.....
This author never made any assertions of the mass of anything. Simply we don't know the masses of anything.
http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/pendulum-lab/pendulum-lab_en.html
While in the shower, I realized that I am being drawn into a straw man argument about frequency, when my first assertions were about the measured "bounce" of the test article vs the cal system. Did I mention that we're not dealing with an already oscillating pendulum. The "noise" oscillations are clearly visible in the screenshot below, and the kinetic energy to be overcome from those oscillations is inconsequential because the table is isolated from the rest of the earth. (Gulf of Mexico, footsteps, and car crashes are isolated from measurement.) It is inconsequential because the "thrust" is clearly visible above the noise floor. No further treatment is required to suss that signal out.
Even after demonstrating one way, that is simple and elegant (the website) that a change of mass suspended from a pendulum does not affect the frequency. This was chosen to not confuse bystanders or using howlers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy#Howlers. Such as using formulas below:
m d2x/dt2 +c dx/dt + k x = F(t)
Which should be this anyway: m (d2x/dt2)+c(dx/dt)+kx =F(t)
And introducing conditions which aren't present, such as an already oscillating pendulum.
That formula you posted above is a mass spring damper equation of an oscillator.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1286223#msg1286223
Nope.
You brought up frequency and I told you I don't care about frequency.
I don't care about frequency because of the mass independence of pendulum period.
http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/demonstrations-on-video/oscillations-gravitation/pendulum-periods/
46:30 in.
I'm not arguing anymore.
What the author is discussing does not apply to the EM drives researched by NASA Eagleworks because the materials used are isotropic. (Copper in all cases and in some cases Teflon or Polyethylene dielectrics -injection molded-)IIRC, some of the cryogenically injection molded metal glass alloys are anisotropic as they align with strong fields when injection molded. See the stuff at liquidmetal.com for this. Additionally, there are ways to force anisotropy even on sputtered films of copper and the like. Sputtering anisotropic films is a trade secret carefully guarded within its industry but it's something some people know how to do. It's done with AiN on a daily basis.
There is a way to make these polymers anisotropic in bulk. I read some years ago and just did a quick search, it concerns stretching the material. There was some buzz years ago that the new electroactive polymers being considered for energy conversion and springwalker style powered armor benefit hugely from anisotropy. Quick search came up with this if you have an interest I'm sure you can do a better one.QuoteThe EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.
@Mulletron - That does not mean necessarily that you're on the wrong track, just that our current understanding is not sufficiently complete to attribute the measured force. (I know, that sounds like gobbally-gook) :)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm052511w
Well I accepted the challenge. It took me 30 minutes to find that both extruded PE and PTFE solidify to a semicrystalline structure. Therefore they are anisotropic. If they were amorphous, they'd be isotropic.
So I've established that the materials used in the the Brady et al test campaigns are both chiral polymers and they are both anisotropic due to their semicrystalline structure.
I'll save you the trip to the Oracle this time.
See for yourself. Just google crystallization of polymers.
Also google chiral polymer tacticity.
A neat resource I found:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/anisotropy.htm
Also two exciting words: lamella twisting, here's helical chirality in PE
http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/scm/scm4
Chirality=proven true
mechanical anisotropy=proven true
electromagnetic or magnetic anisotropy=not proven true, this is where spontaneous pt symmetry breaking comes in. Been working on this one for a while.
Neither PTFE (Tefflon) or Polyethylene are mechanically or electromagnetically anisotropic in bulk. I have measured their directional properties with Dielectrometry, NMR, TMA, DTMA and with MTS. Semi crystallinity in thermoplastic polymers is not at all like well ordered crystalline metals. The "crystalline" regions have independent domains oriented randomly throughout the polymer. Extrusion anisotropy takes place at the exterior surface of the extruded rod in regions of very high shear near the extruder walls. The interior of the extruded rod is isotropic. Injection molded PTFE and PE are isotropic due to the random orientation produced during the injection molded process.
There are proprietary manufacturing methods to produce mechanically , electromagnetically and optically anisotropic polymers, for example when making optically anisotropic polarized lenses. One would not use extrusion to make such lenses. It is much easier to attain preferred orientation, overall-anisotropic materials for thin polymer sheets or for very small diameter filaments.
There is a way to make these polymers anisotropic in bulk. I read some years ago and just did a quick search, it concerns stretching the material. There was some buzz years ago that the new electroactive polymers being considered for energy conversion and springwalker style powered armor benefit hugely from anisotropy. Quick search came up with this if you have an interest I'm sure you can do a better one.QuoteThe EM Drives tested by NASA Eagleworks do not satisfy the anisotropy (mechanical and electromagnetic) conditions required by the author. What the author discusses is not applicable to explain the measurements at NASA Eagleworks.
@Mulletron - That does not mean necessarily that you're on the wrong track, just that our current understanding is not sufficiently complete to attribute the measured force. (I know, that sounds like gobbally-gook) :)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm052511w
Well I accepted the challenge. It took me 30 minutes to find that both extruded PE and PTFE solidify to a semicrystalline structure. Therefore they are anisotropic. If they were amorphous, they'd be isotropic.
So I've established that the materials used in the the Brady et al test campaigns are both chiral polymers and they are both anisotropic due to their semicrystalline structure.
I'll save you the trip to the Oracle this time.
See for yourself. Just google crystallization of polymers.
Also google chiral polymer tacticity.
A neat resource I found:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/anisotropy.htm
Also two exciting words: lamella twisting, here's helical chirality in PE
http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/scm/scm4
Chirality=proven true
mechanical anisotropy=proven true
electromagnetic or magnetic anisotropy=not proven true, this is where spontaneous pt symmetry breaking comes in. Been working on this one for a while.
Neither PTFE (Tefflon) or Polyethylene are mechanically or electromagnetically anisotropic in bulk. I have measured their directional properties with Dielectrometry, NMR, TMA, DTMA and with MTS. Semi crystallinity in thermoplastic polymers is not at all like well ordered crystalline metals. The "crystalline" regions have independent domains oriented randomly throughout the polymer. Extrusion anisotropy takes place at the exterior surface of the extruded rod in regions of very high shear near the extruder walls. The interior of the extruded rod is isotropic. Injection molded PTFE and PE are isotropic due to the random orientation produced during the injection molded process.
There are proprietary manufacturing methods to produce mechanically , electromagnetically and optically anisotropic polymers, for example when making optically anisotropic polarized lenses. One would not use extrusion to make such lenses. It is much easier to attain preferred orientation, overall-anisotropic materials for thin polymer sheets or for very small diameter filaments.
No wait, this is reverse, we are not the paid researchers here. They should do the work of proving correctly this is not a thermal effect, then we could consider the possibility it is something less conventional. Unless they do prove this is not thermal, this is probably thermal and bogus indeed. We should not get habituated to this poor level of justifications. Because extraordinary claims...Agreed but lets remember this is a conference paper, not a peer review paper, and they rushed to get to market with this, not even doing a statistically valid series of runs. It is because of this though, that their funding was extended another 6 months, so not hard to understand.
Stretching the material to produce semi-crystalline anisotropic polymers (something I was involved in my professional life in manufacturing, numerical analysis and R&D) works well for filaments and thin films. Not for a polymer several inches thick. As an example, Kevlar is a liquid crystalline polymer. To make strongly aligned, and fairly free of defects, one makes Kevlar fibers. To make a thick aerospace product one may use a Kevlar-fiber reinforced composite but not a inches thick solid bulk Kevlar product (which doesn't exist because it is undesirable).It was my understanding (and it's some years since I studied this) that these are all electrostrictors, not piezoactive; so not able to do power generation since electrostriction is not reversible. (Also not rigid enough for VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies, so they're useless for M-E tech.) So were you working on the polymer actuator powered personal armor from the old Springwalker/Land Warrior program? That is such cool tech!
Stretching the material to produce semi-crystalline anisotropic polymers (something I was involved in my professional life in manufacturing, numerical analysis and R&D) works well for filaments and thin films. Not for a polymer several inches thick. As an example, Kevlar is a liquid crystalline polymer. To make strongly aligned, and fairly free of defects, one makes Kevlar fibers. To make a thick aerospace product one may use a Kevlar-fiber reinforced composite but not a inches thick solid bulk Kevlar product (which doesn't exist because it is undesirable).I usually draw the distinction between thin films and bulk, but I'm sure you can draw the distinction between thick films and bulk if you like.
It was my understanding (and it's some years since I studied this) that these are all electrostrictors, not piezoactive; so not able to do power generation since electrostriction is not reversible. (Also not rigid enough for VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies, so they're useless for M-E tech.) So were you working on the polymer actuator powered personal armor from the old Springwalker/Land Warrior program? That is such cool tech!
The discussion of anisotropy that you are referring to was motivated by Mulletron who has multiple posts advocating that the EM Drive measurements may be due to the Quantum Vacuum transferring momentum to the polymers used as a dielectric in the EM Drives.That would be interesting if things without inertial mass could transfer momentum, but they can't; so obviously that notion is wrong.
I think I'm with Mulletron on this one. We seem to have gotten into some sort of pissing match for no good reason, and I think a good point has been raised:1) The dynamic response of this structure (the EM Drive on the torsional pendulum) is governed by the ratio of the excitation frequency to the natural frequencies of the structure. If one doesn't understand that the dynamic response is governed by the natural frequencies of the structure, one cannot hope to understand the dynamics of the response.
We don't actually know the test mass of the assembly, just the weight limit that the experimenters confined themselves to. As much as I can tell, with no background in the relevant fields, different weights will affect the dynamics of the assembly, and a dynamic analysis that uses 25 pounds as the mass cannot be assumed to be definitive. "Try" doesn't eliminate the possibility that the weight exceeded 25 pounds.
Mulletron was under the completely wrong understanding that the pendulum at NASA Eagleworks was a hanging pendulum
Fun to play around with:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=280&sim=1518&cnt=4
The pendulum arm pivots about two linear flexure bearings in a plane normal to gravitational acceleration. The flexure bearings provide an essentially-frictionless and hysteresis-free interface between the static test stand fixed structure and the dynamic pendulum arm. Test article force is measured by measuring the pendulum arm displacement and calculating the force via the flexure bearing spring constants that were determined during test facility setup
We know. It is for theory.Fun to play around with:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=280&sim=1518&cnt=4QuoteNothing is suspended from a wire:
Fun to play around with:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=280&sim=1518&cnt=4
Nothing is suspended from a wire:Quote from: Brady, March, White, et.al.The pendulum arm pivots about two linear flexure bearings in a plane normal to gravitational acceleration. The flexure bearings provide an essentially-frictionless and hysteresis-free interface between the static test stand fixed structure and the dynamic pendulum arm. Test article force is measured by measuring the pendulum arm displacement and calculating the force via the flexure bearing spring constants that were determined during test facility setup
NASA Eagleworks has an inverted pendulum.
According to Paul March, NASA Eagleworks uses as a torsional spring two Riverhawk C-flex bearing blocks with torsional spring constant
(http://www.onesworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SingleDouble.jpg)
(http://flexpivots.com/cantilevered-single-ended-pivot-bearings/) centered 2.38" above and below the centerline of the 24.00" long by 1.50" Faztek aluminum pendulum arm. The long end of the pendulum arm is 15.5" from the torque pendulum's center of rotation, which makes the other short-end of the pendulum arm 8.5" from the center of rotation.
However, the NASA report shows a linear flexure bearing http://flexpivots.com/linear-flexure-bearing/
Fun to play around with:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=280&sim=1518&cnt=4
Nothing is suspended from a wire:Quote from: Brady, March, White, et.al.The pendulum arm pivots about two linear flexure bearings in a plane normal to gravitational acceleration. The flexure bearings provide an essentially-frictionless and hysteresis-free interface between the static test stand fixed structure and the dynamic pendulum arm. Test article force is measured by measuring the pendulum arm displacement and calculating the force via the flexure bearing spring constants that were determined during test facility setup
NASA Eagleworks has an inverted pendulum.
According to Paul March, NASA Eagleworks uses as a torsional spring two Riverhawk C-flex bearing blocks with torsional spring constant
(http://www.onesworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SingleDouble.jpg)
(http://flexpivots.com/cantilevered-single-ended-pivot-bearings/) centered 2.38" above and below the centerline of the 24.00" long by 1.50" Faztek aluminum pendulum arm. The long end of the pendulum arm is 15.5" from the torque pendulum's center of rotation, which makes the other short-end of the pendulum arm 8.5" from the center of rotation.
However, the NASA report shows a linear flexure bearing http://flexpivots.com/linear-flexure-bearing/
Well, the pic shows the bearing block anyway, not necc the c-flecs (always used c-flex me self back then)
1) The dynamic response of this structure (the EM Drive on the torsional pendulum) is governed by the ratio of the excitation frequency to the natural frequencies of the structure.
2) Mulletron stated that he didn't care about the natural frequency of the pendulum...
3) Mulletron was under the completely wrong understanding that the pendulum at NASA Eagleworks was a hanging pendulum...
4) blah blah blah...
...what is unknown is the lumped mass (the EM Drive) at a given distance from the center of rotation.
5) Moreover, we don't need to know the mass to compute the dynamic response at all. ... [per] [Rodal], March, Frob, NotSo...
Hope this mention [of] prosecution will not [cause to be entertained] a certain level of paranoia : fact is, like for any rational investigation activity, hair splitting is also part of the job of science.
I propose the hypothesis that the microwave amplifier is the cause of the lack of punch of the signal, if the amplifier takes more than .1s to reach full power.
....Quote from: Rodal5) Moreover, we don't need to know the mass to compute the dynamic response at all. ... [per] [Rodal], March, Frob, NotSo...
....
5) Which primitive man flat out do not get, and which p.m. look at with very wary eye. (Vewwy wawwy, per Elmer Fudd)
@Rodal - Did you write that the side walls of the cone are not subject to heating?For the transverse electric mode TE012 the electric field is circular, perpendicular to the long axis of the truncated cone. The electric field is zero at the inner copper surface. The only heating takes place because of the magnetic field in the long axial direction which heats the flat ends of the cone in circular areas centered at the center of the flat areas, as per attached picture. Therefore there is no heating whatsoever of the round lateral surface of the cone. Moreover, due to the Polyethylene insulation that Eagleworks placed at the interior small flat end, only the central portion of the big flat end gets all the power heating:
Because if the side walls did warm the outside boundary layer of air then the warmer boundary layer would rise causing a reduced pressure over the outside of the cone walls. The result would be a net force toward the small end.
Actually, I just glanced at the ideal gas law relationship and no easy way to calculate the lift force on the cone walls popped out. Its a constant pressure set-up because pressure is atmospheric, but total pressure includes dynamic pressure of the rising boundary layer. And of course the aerodynamic force is generated by the difference in static pressures caused by dynamic pressures. In this case with very low heating (small temperature change) the dynamic pressure would be very small. But then the cone walls are quite large so a very small pressure difference might create a small measured thrust.
Say 1/4 of the cone on each side contributed to aerodynamic normal force. The total area normal dot axial direction is big end area minus small end area divided by two (2*1/4). That is, about 193 cm2. Since F = P*A, to develop 50 micro N needs 0.00259067 N/m2 or 2.6 milli-Pa.
Dynamic pressure = rho*V2/2 and rho at sea level is about 1.225 kg/m3. It boils down to requiring a rising air velocity greater than V ~ 6.5 cm/s which is probably to much to be generated quickly enough to avoid a tell-tale time lag in the measured signal.
It was just a thought.
This idea doesn't even consider the Cannae superconducting thruster, to which it could not apply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
This inconsistency parallels the inconsistency of showing in his slide for the TE012 truncated cone test the electric field shown below, which in the "Anomalous" report is indicated to be the electric field of a future dielectric design and NOT the tested design.
....
What's up with the disparity between the 4" dielectric slug from the slides and the reported 6.25"x1.06" slugs from the paper? Much inconsistency with this one.
...
I'm wondering if someone screwed up while drafting the paper and those 6.25"x1.06" dielectrics are actually what is in Cannae. A tall narrow cylinder.Equally (or more ?) likely that White conflated the new "dielectric" design and COMSOL FE analysis with the one used for actual testing by Brady and March as White rushed to present the Power Point presentation for the NASA Ames colloquium.
If the dielectric in the conical frustum is 4" (Tall or wide or both? What is supporting it?), we have our cavity estimates way off.
I'm not willing to bother anyone by emailing them for clarification. Anyone else already have a dialogue going?
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014.
discusses Infrared camera image of the Cannae test article at @36 minutes
Of course, as posted previously, there is no heating of the exterior round lateral surface of the cone.
White did not comment on interior heating of the big end or the insulation they placed on the exterior of the flat areas of the cone or the insulation they placed on the interior small end.
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014.
discusses Infrared camera image of the Cannae test article at @36 minutes
Of course, as posted previously, there is no heating of the exterior round lateral surface of the cone.
White did not comment on interior heating of the big end or the insulation they placed on the exterior of the flat areas of the cone or the insulation they placed on the interior small end.
What we see on the IR picture is the Cannae where there is no low thermal conduction PCB plate involved...
And even on this mostly copper apparatus we see not a lot of heat going out, "because it's High Q". But high Q or not, driven at resonance or not, power pumped in frustum should be dissipated from frustum. The RF amplifier heats a lot (comparatively). I don't find again the actual values of power injected for Cannae, nor the value of power injected to amplifier (as DC current of 5.6 A). I get that the RF amplifier has a limited efficiency (how much ?) and delivers less in microwave watts than it takes in DC watts, that would account for such a disparity in dissipated power from RF amplifier relative to frustum ? What when the RF power is less (like 2.6 W) : the amplifier eats less DC ( I remember someone told it was class AB...) or dissipates more (like a class A that takes as much power input, whether outputting AC or not) ?
My doubt : is the microwave power (indicated as reference for all the experiments, like 16.9 W ...) really pumped in the cavity "one way" or isn't a large part of this power bouncing back at the RF amplifier and being dissipated there, making for a lower net power input to cavity ? Opinions from people knowing RF circuits and microwave generators better ?
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014.
discusses Infrared camera image of the Cannae test article at @36 minutes
Of course, as posted previously, there is no heating of the exterior round lateral surface of the cone.
White did not comment on interior heating of the big end or the insulation they placed on the exterior of the flat areas of the cone or the insulation they placed on the interior small end.
What we see on the IR picture is the Cannae where there is no low thermal conduction PCB plate involved...
.....
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014.
discusses Infrared camera image of the Cannae test article at @36 minutes
Of course, as posted previously, there is no heating of the exterior round lateral surface of the cone.
White did not comment on interior heating of the big end or the insulation they placed on the exterior of the flat areas of the cone or the insulation they placed on the interior small end.
What we see on the IR picture is the Cannae where there is no low thermal conduction PCB plate involved...
.....
Thank you for emphasizing that.
The COMSOL FE analysis shows the electric field in the dielectric (Teflon PTFE) to be 20 to 50 times higher than elsewhere in the Cannae.
However both PTFE ("Teflon") in the Cannae and PE (polyethylene) in the truncated cone are non-polar, hence no dipole microwave heating can take place unless they contain some water molecules.
PTFE ("Teflon") is also hydrophobic so not likely to contain water molecules and hence very unlikely to be microwave heated.
Both PTFE ("Teflon") in the Cannae and PE (polyethylene) in the truncated cone are also transparent to RF frequencies so negligible dielectric heating in them as well.
So if there is any internal heating in the Cannae it must be the result of the electromagnetic field on the copper. Unfortunately the magnetic field is not shown. So no further comments on this unless we analyze the magnetic field in the Cannae.
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
The test campaigns are discussed in the video too.
@39:25 the slide says the conical frustum has a 4" dielectric resonator!?!?!
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014.
discusses Infrared camera image of the Cannae test article at @36 minutes
Of course, as posted previously, there is no heating of the exterior round lateral surface of the cone.
White did not comment on interior heating of the big end or the insulation they placed on the exterior of the flat areas of the cone or the insulation they placed on the interior small end.
What we see on the IR picture is the Cannae where there is no low thermal conduction PCB plate involved...
.....
Thank you for emphasizing that.
The COMSOL FE analysis shows the electric field in the dielectric (Teflon PTFE) to be 20 to 50 times higher than elsewhere in the Cannae.
However both PTFE ("Teflon") in the Cannae and PE (polyethylene) in the truncated cone are non-polar, hence no dipole microwave heating can take place unless they contain some water molecules.
PTFE ("Teflon") is also hydrophobic so not likely to contain water molecules and hence very unlikely to be microwave heated.
Both PTFE ("Teflon") in the Cannae and PE (polyethylene) in the truncated cone are also transparent to RF frequencies so negligible dielectric heating in them as well.
So if there is any internal heating in the Cannae it must be the result of the electromagnetic field on the copper. Unfortunately the magnetic field is not shown. So no further comments on this unless we analyze the magnetic field in the Cannae.
If I understand what you said. and the IR camera image from the presentation is not faked. Wouldn't that put a nail in the coffin of thermal effects artifact? At least as far as the Cannae testing is concerned.
He answers that the Alcubierre drive doesn't violate causality and that it cannot be used for time travel to the past because the spacecraft never travels faster than the speed of light in its local spacetime.
.../...
Both PTFE ("Teflon") in the Cannae and PE (polyethylene) in the truncated cone are also transparent to RF frequencies so negligible dielectric heating in them as well.
So if there is any internal heating in the Cannae it must be the result of the electromagnetic field on the copper. Unfortunately the magnetic field is not shown. So no further comments on this unless we analyze the magnetic field in the Cannae.
If I understand what you said. and the IR camera image from the presentation is not faked. Wouldn't that put a nail in the coffin of thermal effects artifact? At least as far as the Cannae testing is concerned.
I agree with the astrophysicist friend of yours that if the Alcubierre superluminal warp vehicle would be possible it could also act as a time machine because it distorts the spacetime around the spacecraft, and therefore time-loops are possible (regardless of the actual internal local speed of the spacecraft) but I'm not interested in engaging into a long multi-post argument with anybody that agrees with Dr. White, as I don't think this thread is the proper place to have such time-travel arguments.He answers that the Alcubierre drive doesn't violate causality and that it cannot be used for time travel to the past because the spacecraft never travels faster than the speed of light in its local spacetime.
I remember an astrophysicist friend of mine and other people at physics forums saying that no matter if the local spacetime didn't change (warp) or you got instantaneously from one point to another (warp), it was still time travel to the past, because of the light cone or something like that. Any opinion Dr Rodal?
I have seen this stuff debated by others. What most physicists (including Alcubierre himself) agree with (except apparently Dr. White and a few others including a Portuguese scientist), is that the Alcubierre drive is not practically feasible and that wormholes remain as the only way to possibly ever travel superluminally. I haven't watched the movie "Interstellar" yet :)
It is indeed a C-Flex torsion balance. I think calling it "inverted" is causing more trouble than it's solving. This is the design used by Woodward, who was the first to put the liquid metal contacts in, and adopted by him in 2005 from the Austrian Research Center who has been running one for more than a decade. It was in light of this Woodward named his balance the "ARC Lite" but it turns out, ARC did not invent the balance either. It was in service at UCLA before this and several other places, and is certainly the most precise balance design to date. Suspension balances suffer different issues, so it is a toss up which is better, but the torsion balance is certainly more accurate as it has nN resolution and can carry a great deal of mass and retain that resolution.Fun to play around with:
http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=1&brch=280&sim=1518&cnt=4
Nothing is suspended from a wire:Quote from: Brady, March, White, et.al.The pendulum arm pivots about two linear flexure bearings in a plane normal to gravitational acceleration. The flexure bearings provide an essentially-frictionless and hysteresis-free interface between the static test stand fixed structure and the dynamic pendulum arm. Test article force is measured by measuring the pendulum arm displacement and calculating the force via the flexure bearing spring constants that were determined during test facility setup
NASA Eagleworks has an inverted pendulum.
According to Paul March, NASA Eagleworks uses as a torsional spring two Riverhawk C-flex bearing blocks with torsional spring constant
(http://www.onesworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SingleDouble.jpg)
(http://flexpivots.com/cantilevered-single-ended-pivot-bearings/) centered 2.38" above and below the centerline of the 24.00" long by 1.50" Faztek aluminum pendulum arm. The long end of the pendulum arm is 15.5" from the torque pendulum's center of rotation, which makes the other short-end of the pendulum arm 8.5" from the center of rotation.
However, the NASA report shows a linear flexure bearing http://flexpivots.com/linear-flexure-bearing/
Well, the pic shows the bearing block anyway, not necc the c-flecs (always used c-flex me self back then)
So, who are we to believe you think based on your experience and looking at the picture? (Honest question, not a trick question)
The report that states linear bearing (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29276.0;attach=620106;image)or Paul March that stated C-Flex bearing?
@Rodal - Did you write that the side walls of the cone are not subject to heating?The balance design unfortunately does suffer some small amount of vertical to horizontal coupling as changes in vertical force can show up as small horizontal thrusts. This is one reason why Woodward's balance (and one supposes the one at Eagleworks) includes the ability to physically reorient the thruster to point left and right, so that sort of coupling can be subtracted out as common noise. Precise explanations of this out ought to appear in any peer review lit that eventually comes from Eagle.
Because if the side walls did warm the outside boundary layer of air then the warmer boundary layer would rise causing a reduced pressure over the outside of the cone walls. The result would be a net force toward the small end.
@Rodal - Did you write that the side walls of the cone are not subject to heating?The balance design unfortunately does suffer some small amount of vertical to horizontal coupling as changes in vertical force can show up as small horizontal thrusts. This is one reason why Woodward's balance (and one supposes the one at Eagleworks) includes the ability to physically reorient the thruster to point left and right, so that sort of coupling can be subtracted out as common noise. Precise explanations of this out ought to appear in any peer review lit that eventually comes from Eagle.
Because if the side walls did warm the outside boundary layer of air then the warmer boundary layer would rise causing a reduced pressure over the outside of the cone walls. The result would be a net force toward the small end.
This shows me that there is nothing anomalous about the response of the truncated cone: it is most probably due to thermal effects. Even a chemical thruster exhibits complex response. This is not the case here.
. . .all experimental work should be accompanied by analytical models of the testing equipment.
. . .As frobnicat pointed out there is a huge amount of effort in trying to see the effects of the Quantum Vacuum and not enough effort to try to see the effect of classical physics.
....I see no reason for him to publish in peer review when he can get 3 other NASA centers to go after validation without risking anything. He's very shrewd that way.
Lost time is never found again.
When you write " to go after validation without risking anything. He's very shrewd that way" I don't understand what is not being risked and why is this being "shrewd".
A scientist wants as much peer review as he can get. You want to publish in peer review journals. It is to your own benefit. If you are correct you get the recognition. If you are incorrect the sooner you find out the better. If others point out that you are missing something it is to your benefit. If one doesn't get peer review and discussion with other scientists, then one really may end up wasting precious years of your life in the wrong path and not really learn anything.
...
And about the shrewdness thing. . .it is good to note that without publishing in peer review and putting out all the work this entails, Sonny has managed not only to redirect substantial NASA resources and DARPA funding onto his project, but now several NASA centers will be pursuing it. That is at the least, highly efficient, and he still hasn't stuck his neck out for his QVF model. That's more than shrewd. It's clever even. I'm not suggesting this is how science should be done, but he is getting what he wants. The trouble is, that eventually everyone will figure out the truth of the issue and the consequences of that will be interesting to say the least.
The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion.I'm not saying that at all. I'm a firm believer in the scientific process and one can't project one's desires onto someone else's methods, data and conclusions. I think the whole QVF model is going to crash and burn. That's what is interesting. . .the fact this stuff cannot forever be done covertly. The facts will come out before there are larger funds released, but for the time being it seems several other centers have taken an interest, all because of this conference paper.
I received another very interesting e-mail from Bob Ludwick, that I reproduce below:I completely agree with this except I would note that there is very serious challenge in the notion of changing frequency and NOTHING else. Dr. Ludwick points this out, and I agree with him though I'm not sure how one would do what he suggests.
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Testing the EmDrive
Hello Dr. Rodal
Although thrust without throwing something out the back is at least improbable (I am of course rooting for the improbable.), I think that the testing problem (to rule out heat artifacts) could be resolved by the test plan I proposed awhile back.
i. e.
A. Establish the resonant frequency (s) and bandwidths of the thruster.
B. Select a test frequency range that is at least double the bandwidth of the thruster, so that the start and stop frequencies are well outside the high Q region of the thruster.
C. Select frequency steps so that you are guaranteed AT LEAST ten steps in the high Q region of the thruster.
D. Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
E. Start the frequency sweep, with dwell times on each frequency long enough for the mechanical system to settle. Change NOTHING other than frequency.
F. For each frequency step, record forward and reflected power from the thruster.
G. After allowing for mechanical settling time, record the thrust.
H. Go to the next frequency and repeat.
If there is any ‘anomalous’ thrust related to thruster Q this procedure will detect it. If the ‘thrust’ is due to thermal effects, it should remain constant throughout the test, as the power/current will be constant throughout the test
It DOES require a highly stable, computer controlled signal source rather than a VCO with a knob, but those, including those suitable for testing superconducting cavities, are available from any equipment rental place (such as ElectroRent) if the lab is too cheap to buy one. Power meters, too.
I am completely baffled at the apparent disinterest of people and organizations who should be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting their hands on a relatively simple device that can convert microwave power into translational motion at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than simple photon rockets. Apparently they have decided that it is prima facie impossible and therefore don’t want to waste any time or money in finding the problems in some fringe PhD’s test setup.
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP. I’d have lab crews—more than one, at different labs, using different equipment--working overtime until I knew, one way or another, whether it was real or not. And I would insist in more than one ‘fail’ before I called a halt. Frankly, doing so should be cheap AND fast. And the stakes are enormous.
Bob Ludwick
And about the shrewdness thing. . .it is good to note that without publishing in peer review and putting out all the work this entails, Sonny has managed not only to redirect substantial NASA resources and DARPA funding onto his project, but now several NASA centers will be pursuing it. That is at the least, highly efficient, and he still hasn't stuck his neck out for his QVF model. That's more than shrewd. It's clever even. I'm not suggesting this is how science should be done, but he is getting what he wants. The trouble is, that eventually everyone will figure out the truth of the issue and the consequences of that will be interesting to say the least.
The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion.I'm not saying that at all. I'm a firm believer in the scientific process and one can't project one's desires onto someone else's methods, data and conclusions. I think the whole QVF model is going to crash and burn. That's what is interesting. . .the fact this stuff cannot forever be done covertly. The facts will come out before there are larger funds released, but for the time being it seems several other centers have taken an interest, all because of this conference paper.
I received another very interesting e-mail from Bob Ludwick, that I reproduce below:
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Testing the EmDrive
Hello Dr. Rodal
Although thrust without throwing something out the back is at least improbable (I am of course rooting for the improbable.), I think that the testing problem (to rule out heat artifacts) could be resolved by the test plan I proposed awhile back.
i. e.
A. Establish the resonant frequency (s) and bandwidths of the thruster.
B. Select a test frequency range that is at least double the bandwidth of the thruster, so that the start and stop frequencies are well outside the high Q region of the thruster.
C. Select frequency steps so that you are guaranteed AT LEAST ten steps in the high Q region of the thruster.
D. Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
E. Start the frequency sweep, with dwell times on each frequency long enough for the mechanical system to settle. Change NOTHING other than frequency.
F. For each frequency step, record forward and reflected power from the thruster.
G. After allowing for mechanical settling time, record the thrust.
H. Go to the next frequency and repeat.
If there is any ‘anomalous’ thrust related to thruster Q this procedure will detect it. If the ‘thrust’ is due to thermal effects, it should remain constant throughout the test, as the power/current will be constant throughout the test
It DOES require a highly stable, computer controlled signal source rather than a VCO with a knob, but those, including those suitable for testing superconducting cavities, are available from any equipment rental place (such as ElectroRent) if the lab is too cheap to buy one. Power meters, too.
I am completely baffled at the apparent disinterest of people and organizations who should be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting their hands on a relatively simple device that can convert microwave power into translational motion at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than simple photon rockets. Apparently they have decided that it is prima facie impossible and therefore don’t want to waste any time or money in finding the problems in some fringe PhD’s test setup.
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP. I’d have lab crews—more than one, at different labs, using different equipment--working overtime until I knew, one way or another, whether it was real or not. And I would insist in more than one ‘fail’ before I called a halt. Frankly, doing so should be cheap AND fast. And the stakes are enormous.
Bob Ludwick
....I see no reason for him to publish in peer review when he can get 3 other NASA centers to go after validation without risking anything. He's very shrewd that way.
Its almost like Doctor White doesn't want anybody to duplicate his efforts, which sort of negates the point of having three other NASA centers go after validation - how are they supposed to check his results if they cannot adequately replicate the device?
The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion. Shouldn't labs be doing an equivalent level of review of another teams work before taking on the job of doing validation?
Quote from: Rodal, channeling LudwickSet the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
The amp must be operating from a standby mode, where it is ready to give as square a wave as it can as soon as it is triggered. Otherwise, there would have to be a warm-up period for the amp, where they would have to shunt the signal elsewhere, till it got up to spec. But they were sloppy on the frequencies, as earlier noted, so what do me know?
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP.
...this would be shot down at any peer-reviewed journal worth a dime...
I expect you're joking? All other forms of scrutiny are significantly less than peer review. That's why peer review is such a critical resource. NASA has almost no physicists able to review QVF, so don't expect scrutiny there. NASA is almost all engineers. Real peer review needs to be done by particle physicists and that review would toss QVF out into the cold, no questions asked.The conclusion I am forced to draw is the scrutiny the NASA labs will do of White's QVF model will be significantly less than if he had attempted to get it into a peer review journal. Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion. Shouldn't labs be doing an equivalent level of review of another teams work before taking on the job of doing validation?
Sorry. That is a heretical viewpoint worthy of dismissal.
... Am I the only one that finds this to be a weird conclusion...
Sorry. That is a heretical viewpoint...
I expect you're joking?
There just isn't enough information to decide what is really going on
Now taking from this, I can tell you that removing the dielectric from an otherwise resonant cavity, will de-tune that cavity. And if the Nasa experimenters didn't re-tune the cavity after taking the dielectric out, they would think that the dielectric is important for there to be a "thrust." If the cavity works best by having a very high Q for example (empty cavity advocates), that would be broken.I'm pretty sure they were specific that the Q was measured to be very high without the dielectric, which was I believe the first way they tested it. I think they added the dielectric afterward.
When someone statesQuoteThere just isn't enough information to decide what is really going on
what they are stating is that they cannot decide what is really going on based on the available information and their background and experience.
It would be presumptuous in the extreme for somebody to pretend to speak as to what anyone else may be able to accomplish.
Now taking from this, I can tell you that removing the dielectric from an otherwise resonant cavity, will de-tune that cavity. And if the Nasa experimenters didn't re-tune the cavity after taking the dielectric out, they would think that the dielectric is important for there to be a "thrust." If the cavity works best by having a very high Q for example (empty cavity advocates), that would be broken.I'm pretty sure they were specific that the Q was measured to be very high without the dielectric, which was I believe the first way they tested it. I think they added the dielectric afterward.
And in any event, to presume they would not know what you just said is to presume they're rarther stupid when they are not.
F. Tapered Cavity RF Evaluation, General Findings and Lessons Learned
....We performed some very early evaluations without the dielectric resonator (TE012 mode at 2168 MHz, with power levels up to ~30 watts) and measured no significant net thrust
Hi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.
Thanks,
Jordan Greenhall
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
I received another very interesting e-mail from Bob Ludwick, that I reproduce below:I completely agree with this except I would note that there is very serious challenge in the notion of changing frequency and NOTHING else. Dr. Ludwick points this out, and I agree with him though I'm not sure how one would do what he suggests.
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Testing the EmDrive
Hello Dr. Rodal
Although thrust without throwing something out the back is at least improbable (I am of course rooting for the improbable.), I think that the testing problem (to rule out heat artifacts) could be resolved by the test plan I proposed awhile back.
i. e.
A. Establish the resonant frequency (s) and bandwidths of the thruster.
B. Select a test frequency range that is at least double the bandwidth of the thruster, so that the start and stop frequencies are well outside the high Q region of the thruster.
C. Select frequency steps so that you are guaranteed AT LEAST ten steps in the high Q region of the thruster.
D. Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
E. Start the frequency sweep, with dwell times on each frequency long enough for the mechanical system to settle. Change NOTHING other than frequency.
F. For each frequency step, record forward and reflected power from the thruster.
G. After allowing for mechanical settling time, record the thrust.
H. Go to the next frequency and repeat.
If there is any ‘anomalous’ thrust related to thruster Q this procedure will detect it. If the ‘thrust’ is due to thermal effects, it should remain constant throughout the test, as the power/current will be constant throughout the test
It DOES require a highly stable, computer controlled signal source rather than a VCO with a knob, but those, including those suitable for testing superconducting cavities, are available from any equipment rental place (such as ElectroRent) if the lab is too cheap to buy one. Power meters, too.
I am completely baffled at the apparent disinterest of people and organizations who should be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting their hands on a relatively simple device that can convert microwave power into translational motion at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than simple photon rockets. Apparently they have decided that it is prima facie impossible and therefore don’t want to waste any time or money in finding the problems in some fringe PhD’s test setup.
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP. I’d have lab crews—more than one, at different labs, using different equipment--working overtime until I knew, one way or another, whether it was real or not. And I would insist in more than one ‘fail’ before I called a halt. Frankly, doing so should be cheap AND fast. And the stakes are enormous.
Bob Ludwick
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.What kind of a team can you assemble?
NoNo. The dielectric slows the em through it, so the chamber is effectively a higher frequency chamber without it. It is presuming the folks at Eagle are stupid in the extreme to think they would not note this most obvious issue.
1) They did not specify (in the "Anomalous ... " report) the Q before or after removing the dielectric
2) They did test (removing the dielectric) very early in the testing program
3) They did specify the frequency at which they performed this test (removing the dielectric) and it was a frequency much higher than for the other reported tests. Therefore these tests (removing the dielectric) are highly questionable.
4) Furthermore @Mulletron's concerns regarding resonance before and after are well thought out.
NoNo. The dielectric slows the em through it, so the chamber is effectively a higher frequency chamber without it. It is presuming the folks at Eagle are stupid in the extreme to think they would not note this most obvious issue.
1) They did not specify (in the "Anomalous ... " report) the Q before or after removing the dielectric
2) They did test (removing the dielectric) very early in the testing program
3) They did specify the frequency at which they performed this test (removing the dielectric) and it was a frequency much higher than for the other reported tests. Therefore these tests (removing the dielectric) are highly questionable.
4) Furthermore @Mulletron's concerns regarding resonance before and after are well thought out.
I'm pretty sure they were specific that the Q was measured to be very high without the dielectric , which was I believe the first way they tested it.
Posting this again.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/
This is a DIY on how to build your own torsion balance at home. This setup is sensitive enough to measure the gravitation between chunks of lead. Good enough to measure "anomalous thrust" if you so desire to build your own test article.
Posting this again.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/
This is a DIY on how to build your own torsion balance at home. This setup is sensitive enough to measure the gravitation between chunks of lead. Good enough to measure "anomalous thrust" if you so desire to build your own test article.
Good info. The classical Cavendish setup.
No Christmas-tree with hanging ornaments setup.
No 1.5 by 1.5 inch Faztek long cantilevered beam sticking out with the EM Drive at the end.
No C-Flex Riverhawk with uncertain spring constant.
You seem to have information from other sources that does not emanate from the "Anomalous..." report:
Where in the report are they so specific concerning the Q measured to be very high without the dielectric?
Please give the page in where that is stated
Hi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.1) What kind of a team can you assemble?
2) Who is on your team?
The sweeping methodology sounds nice, but a "simple" longer power on test could learn a lot too. What is the record of time with power on for any of the propellentless devices so far ?
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.What kind of a team can you assemble?
Who is on your team?
This is an example of why I continue to insist on the paramount importance of stating principles in English before devolving to math. Everything that needs to be said, and that has to be saod. should be reduced to English.
All it takes is three hundred years to start colonizing the solar system. Why haven't we? We're being kept on planet.
I received another very interesting e-mail from Bob Ludwick, that I reproduce below:I completely agree with this except I would note that there is very serious challenge in the notion of changing frequency and NOTHING else. Dr. Ludwick points this out, and I agree with him though I'm not sure how one would do what he suggests.
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Testing the EmDrive
Hello Dr. Rodal
Although thrust without throwing something out the back is at least improbable (I am of course rooting for the improbable.), I think that the testing problem (to rule out heat artifacts) could be resolved by the test plan I proposed awhile back.
i. e.
A. Establish the resonant frequency (s) and bandwidths of the thruster.
B. Select a test frequency range that is at least double the bandwidth of the thruster, so that the start and stop frequencies are well outside the high Q region of the thruster.
C. Select frequency steps so that you are guaranteed AT LEAST ten steps in the high Q region of the thruster.
D. Set the test frequency to the start frequency, turn on the power amplifier, and wait 5 minutes or so for any thermal and current/magnetic field effects to stabilize. Measure the residual thermal/magnetic/whatever ‘thrust’.
E. Start the frequency sweep, with dwell times on each frequency long enough for the mechanical system to settle. Change NOTHING other than frequency.
F. For each frequency step, record forward and reflected power from the thruster.
G. After allowing for mechanical settling time, record the thrust.
H. Go to the next frequency and repeat.
If there is any ‘anomalous’ thrust related to thruster Q this procedure will detect it. If the ‘thrust’ is due to thermal effects, it should remain constant throughout the test, as the power/current will be constant throughout the test
It DOES require a highly stable, computer controlled signal source rather than a VCO with a knob, but those, including those suitable for testing superconducting cavities, are available from any equipment rental place (such as ElectroRent) if the lab is too cheap to buy one. Power meters, too.
I am completely baffled at the apparent disinterest of people and organizations who should be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting their hands on a relatively simple device that can convert microwave power into translational motion at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than simple photon rockets. Apparently they have decided that it is prima facie impossible and therefore don’t want to waste any time or money in finding the problems in some fringe PhD’s test setup.
On the other hand, if I were controlling the budget for spaceships in any form and was aware that at least three disparate groups had detected thrust from EmDrive-like devices, I would want to confirm or refute this thing ASAP. I’d have lab crews—more than one, at different labs, using different equipment--working overtime until I knew, one way or another, whether it was real or not. And I would insist in more than one ‘fail’ before I called a halt. Frankly, doing so should be cheap AND fast. And the stakes are enormous.
Bob Ludwick
Bob Ludwick answered as follows:
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:05 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Re: Testing the EmDrive
As for the difficulty of changing the frequency and nothing else, I don’t see it, but maybe I don’t understand the problem that is being referred to.
To run the test, you turn on the amplifier and all the test equipment, let it stabilize (Normally, in the labs I worked in, the sig gens et all remained powered up 24/7/365, so they didn’t require stabilization time.), and click ‘Run’ on the control computer. The control program which you have written will ask for the start frequency, the stop frequency, the frequency step size, and the desired output level for the signal generator driving the power amplifier. Once those have been entered, the computer will just execute the steps I have outlined. Of course if you define ‘change nothing’ rigorously enough, it becomes difficult, but for the purposes of this exercise, changing the output frequency of the signal generator is done via software commands and occurs in microseconds, typically, the drive is leveled to small fractions of a dB by the sig gen leveling circuits, and over narrow sweep ranges the variations in the current drawn by the amplifier are negligible, as are its variation in output level (which are monitored by the power meter and recorded). So at least to a first approximation, ‘changing nothing' should be pretty simple.
The program should run to completion, in a time depending on the number of steps and the settling time allowed for each step. As the program runs, the computer plots a running graph of measured thrust vs frequency (while saving ALL data to a test file), so that the operator can see what’s happening in real time.
The thrust measurement in the torsional pendulum should occur under computer control, without any operator intervention, once the procedure is known.
The only ‘moving part’ during the whole procedure is whatever mechanical movement occurs in the torsional pendulum as a response to the (hopefully) varying thrust as the frequency sweeps through thruster resonance.
The point is, with all the gory details coming with getting the thrust data back from the torsional pendulum, with my procedure everything should be steady state EXCEPT for the response of the thruster as the drive frequency sweeps through the high Q part of its frequency response. There are no moving parts and no transients. The current (and associated magnetic fields) to the amplifier should remain constant and the amplifier power into the thruster, and thus its heating effect, should remain constant within small fractions of a dB.
You don’t have to worry about what material the end caps are made of, their temperature response curves, or any other material properties of the thruster, unless the measured thrust does in FACT vary with the Q at the drive frequency. At that point, physicists need to figure out what is REALLY going on.
On the other hand, if, after it is powered up and allowed to achieve its steady state temperature, it just hangs there doing nothing as the sig gen is stepped through the frequency of peak Q, we can all go home.
Hi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.
Thanks,
Jordan Greenhall
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.1) What kind of a team can you assemble?
2) Who is on your team?
1) The best.
2) Top men.
Oh, I can assemble a team, all right.1) What kind of a team can you assemble?
2) Who is on your team?
1) The best.
2) Top men.
Women don't need to apply for your team ?
Rodal, I think this should be enough to answer your questions about John.
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
the question is what sort of budget would be needed to build in theory a stronger enough EM device that could give conclusive results about it working or not.
why haven´t White or someone else build a device giving away 1 N and just appear on a press conference on a magic carpet floating over EM devices :) ? Because they don´t KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they don´t know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?
every investment means a risk... investment on an EM Device, since they are still unproved, is a big risk. It should be clear to investors this is an INVESTIGATION if it works or not (unlike Rossi trying to get money from investors by claiming his ECAT DOES work.)
of course, if the investigation to reach conclusive proof are low budget enough, and the pay-off might be ENORMOUS (founding your own Wayland Yutani Corporation haha), the very high risk may be worth a try.
people have been know to gamble a lot of money on much riskier things, like horse racing, soccer and Las Vegas
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data ...
The question is what sort of budget would be needed to build in theory a stronger enough EM device that could give conclusive results about it working or not.
why haven´t White or someone else built a device giving away 1 N and just appear on a press conference on a magic carpet floating over EM devices :) ? Because they don´t KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints? Or they don´t know how to do it BECAUSE of budget constraints?
As someone said before and in agreement on the experimentalist side of things...
Why doesn't someone get a bloody big 100Kw setup of the devices discussed and measure thrust?
We wouldn't need vacuum chambers or any nonsense.
Why not?
Why not? Because......why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Seriously, this time:
The cost and difficulty of scaling to that degree is prohibitive.
Not clear, did they swept on power and recorded whopping hundreds milliNewtons all the way through ?No. All of the highest thrusts were impulse associated with the on and off transients, which according to M-E theory is just what should happen if this is a Mach Effect Thruster. The impulses were not "hundreds' of milliNewtons. I think the highest impulse recored was 110mN. That is a respectable, commercial grade thrust given most communications sats are fitted with 20nM Hall thrusters.
From: Robert LudwickI think he's right. He doesn't understand. This is a very high Q resonator. The higher the Q, the narrower the bandwidth it can resonate at. Without resonance the Q will drop off to between 1/100 and 1/10,000 what it is normally. The resonator needs to resonate. You cannot simply sweep a resonator and think you are changing the frequency only, when the Q is only for small bandwidths of specific frequencies.
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:05 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
Subject: Re: Testing the EmDrive
As for the difficulty of changing the frequency and nothing else, I don’t see it, but maybe I don’t understand the problem that is being referred to.
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.Not clear, did they swept on power and recorded whopping hundreds milliNewtons all the way through ?No. All of the highest thrusts were impulse associated with the on and off transients, which according to M-E theory is just what should happen if this is a Mach Effect Thruster....
None of these explanations appeal because as you said, they violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity. However, the explanation you missed is the Mach Effect explanation, and it does not violate any well understood physics. It in fact requires conservation, GR and EEP all obtain. Also the fact these thruster seem to require the dielectric, and work best during the on and off transients, suggests this is a Mach Effect we're looking at.QuoteHi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.Quote
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
While there have been a couple of DIY types who dropped into this thread, most of the people posting are concerned with trying to figure out how and why the device works in the first place, and whether or not the reported results are the result of a 'false positive' or experimental artifact.
It must be pointed out that the explanations put forth by the creators of these devices run directly contrary to major, well established scientific laws, notably 'conservation of momentum.' That said, the reported results, from different
groups in different countries using devices differing somewhat from each other did produce what APPEARS to be positive results. The problem is reconciling or explaining those results in a manner consistent with known science.
Several options have been investigated to a greater or lesser extent over the past 150 pages or so of this thread. These include:
1) The EM Drive is pushing against 'Dark Matter,' which is just barely workable if there is a lot of Dark Matter in the area.
2) The EM Drive is a sort of Biefield - Brown device, essentially a high voltage all electric aircraft that fly's by ionizing the air underneath it. These devices are legitimate; hobbyist of various sorts have been making the things for decades. You can find videos of them in action on You-Tube under 'anti-gravity.' This possibility was rejected because the EM Drive devices are low voltage mechanisms - simply not enough power. Also, a Biefield-Brown device won't function in a vacuum.
3) The EM Drive...attracts...'Unruh Radiation,' a theoretical 'force' behind Inertia. This explanation gets into known cosmological problems involving expanding space-time. One effect: despite gravitational attraction, galaxies are being 'pushed' away from each other at a constant rate roughly equal to 1 kilometer per second. A Doctor McCulloch, noted physicist and occasional poster in this thread has published papers using Unruh Radiation as a means to explain tiny anomalies in the velocities of several spacecraft. However, this effect, while fascinating, is both unconfirmed and probably confined to 'deep space' - at least by the posters here.
4) One or two posters here have recently begun looking again into the possibility the EM Drive may, after all, really be tapping into the Quantum Vacuum. However, there remain severe problems with this.
5) The explanation most closely looked at now is that the effects produced by the EM Drive are a thermal artifact compounded by a flawed measuring device. According to this hypothesis, the devices should produce miniscule amounts of thrust in an atmosphere, and no thrust at all in space, making it effectively worthless as a space propulsion system.
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
No.None of these explanations appeal because as you said, they violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity. However, the explanation you missed is the Mach Effect explanation, and it does not violate any well understood physics. It in fact requires conservation, GR and EEP all obtain. Also the fact these thruster seem to require the dielectric, and work best during the on and off transients, suggests this is a Mach Effect we're looking at.QuoteHi all, I came here from a reddit post regarding the EM drive: http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/2ih0mh/rapid_spread_of_emdrive_technology_by_the_diy/
I'm interested in funding a private sector test of this tech. Does anyone here have the capabilities of assembling a team that can create a testable EMDrive? If so, lets talk budget.Quote
They say this thing needs to be tested in space. Is that because it needs 0 g? What about testing it on an air track where there is almost no friction?
While there have been a couple of DIY types who dropped into this thread, most of the people posting are concerned with trying to figure out how and why the device works in the first place, and whether or not the reported results are the result of a 'false positive' or experimental artifact.
It must be pointed out that the explanations put forth by the creators of these devices run directly contrary to major, well established scientific laws, notably 'conservation of momentum.' That said, the reported results, from different
groups in different countries using devices differing somewhat from each other did produce what APPEARS to be positive results. The problem is reconciling or explaining those results in a manner consistent with known science.
Several options have been investigated to a greater or lesser extent over the past 150 pages or so of this thread. These include:
1) The EM Drive is pushing against 'Dark Matter,' which is just barely workable if there is a lot of Dark Matter in the area.
2) The EM Drive is a sort of Biefield - Brown device, essentially a high voltage all electric aircraft that fly's by ionizing the air underneath it. These devices are legitimate; hobbyist of various sorts have been making the things for decades. You can find videos of them in action on You-Tube under 'anti-gravity.' This possibility was rejected because the EM Drive devices are low voltage mechanisms - simply not enough power. Also, a Biefield-Brown device won't function in a vacuum.
3) The EM Drive...attracts...'Unruh Radiation,' a theoretical 'force' behind Inertia. This explanation gets into known cosmological problems involving expanding space-time. One effect: despite gravitational attraction, galaxies are being 'pushed' away from each other at a constant rate roughly equal to 1 kilometer per second. A Doctor McCulloch, noted physicist and occasional poster in this thread has published papers using Unruh Radiation as a means to explain tiny anomalies in the velocities of several spacecraft. However, this effect, while fascinating, is both unconfirmed and probably confined to 'deep space' - at least by the posters here.
4) One or two posters here have recently begun looking again into the possibility the EM Drive may, after all, really be tapping into the Quantum Vacuum. However, there remain severe problems with this.
5) The explanation most closely looked at now is that the effects produced by the EM Drive are a thermal artifact compounded by a flawed measuring device. According to this hypothesis, the devices should produce miniscule amounts of thrust in an atmosphere, and no thrust at all in space, making it effectively worthless as a space propulsion system.
It is also worth pointing out that the experimenters have been withholding key data about their devices, making independent verification difficult. A EM Drive device probably could be built on a modest budget; the question is whether it would work.
Publish one single design with reproducible clean 1µN from 1W (operational for a few hours) and all leading private and public labs will exponentially rush on that unknown physics as soon as two or three independent labs with known sceptics at the command confirm something is going on. And that shouldn't take more than a few tens of thousands of dollars.
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.I was just speaking of the work at Eagle as this is what Paul told me. All the largest thrusts were from the switching transients. Since M-E theory predicts this, Woodward filed for a patent on a pulsed AC power system. I don;t know if in his patent he reverses the off transient or extinguishes it, but the two generate pulses in opposite directions (again, according to theory) so he must have dealt with it somehow.
The record shows otherwise. . .
No. Not in general for microwave EM Drive reported results.I was just speaking of the work at Eagle as this is what Paul told me. All the largest thrusts were from the switching transients. Since M-E theory predicts this, Woodward filed for a patent on a pulsed AC power system. I don;t know if in his patent he reverses the off transient or extinguishes it, but the two generate pulses in opposite directions (again, according to theory) so he must have dealt with it somehow.
The record shows otherwise. . .
It is incorrect to state that classical physics thermal effects "violate broadly accepted physical principles such as conservation and Einstein's Equivalence Principle and General Relativity". Thermal effects don't violate any such laws and/or principles.
On the contrary, the thermal effect explanation "appeals" because of Occam's razor: the researchers should spend much more time analyzing classical physics explanations rather than exotic physics that are not generally accepted in the scientific community.
It appears that there is miscommunication between you and Paul then. See for example the attached responses. They do not show an impulse spike (as in the Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device) but a rectangular pulse instead.Guess I need to stop trusting my memory. This fig 19 is interesting but where is the power spectrum? How can you make sense of a graph with no power index?
The Serrano Field Effect Boeing/DARPA device tested at Eagleworks is the one that only showed transient impulse response.
A careful reading of your line of questioning reveals to me some inaccuracy in your approach.
You ask, "bcause they don´t KNOW how to do it or because of budget constraints". Budget is not the cause for lack of results. If they do know how to do it (not that "do it") they have not so demonstrated the phenomena.
The potential economic stakes are very high, but the theoretical costs, if you will, are also very high.
Later, if the EM Drive is demonstrated to produce thrust, then what kind of test could be done to detect the source of the momentum, the reaction mass? With a chemical rocket you can see the reaction mass, fire, and similarly for an ion thruster. Would a "Cloud chamber" allow visualization of the EM thruster reaction mass?That's why Dr. White proposed (in his August 2014 NASA Ames lecture) to measure "the wake in the Quantum Vacuum" left by the EM Drive as one of his future experimental steps.
Knowing the character of the reaction mass would go a long way toward developing the correct theory of operation.
One really wants to find a separate test for each of the proposed models, just as one looks for a separate test for each of the possible spurious sources. For QVF, the fact that these thrusters do not function with DC applied seems to me ample falsification of the QVF model. I have not seen any sort of response to this challenge and it's been years since the first challenges to QVF came in from lack of DC instigated thrust.
To check for M-E as the source, one wants to use a laser dopper vibrometer of sufficient frequency such as the Polytech UHF120:
http://www.polytec.com/us/products/vibration-sensors/microscope-based-systems/uhf-120-ultra-high-frequency-vibrometer/
If the source of thrust is M-E, then we should find 2 separate and distinct acoustic vibrations, one the second harmonic of the other. Note that twice the drive frequency (what would be produced through electrostriction) of the E-M thruster is above the frequency of the above device, and it is probably cheaper to drive a new resonator at lower frequency than try to build your own microwave vibrometer, though the Materials Physics Lab in Helsinki has one that operates up to 40 Ghz, and I believe MIT has a very fast one good for microwave application as well. The main trouble with this method for the E-M thruster is peering inside the truncated cone while it's operating. I think you'd have to put in some sort of window but not sure how that would work. Honestly, it might be easier to just test a real M-E design rather than something producing thrust by accident, which is what the Shawyer device may be doing.
Ron, don't you see a problem with Paul March's and Dr. White's methodology in that their measured response always occurs in the axial direction of both the Cannae and truncated cone, regardless of mode (TE and TM) and that in all cases this measured force is perpendicular to Dr. White's prediction?
Found another theory on how EMdrives might work.Dr Rodal, Frobnicat...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690
Found another theory on how EMdrives might work.Dr Rodal, Frobnicat...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690
If you can make sense of this well done!
I'm afraid it's above me...
The weakest part of the theory seems to be that there is no clear way of preventing large gravitational effects due to the magnetic field of the Earth,
Such claims were criticized by the scientific community mainly due to the proposed theoretical explanation, as Maxwell equations and Special Relativity clearly indicate that no force is possible without the emission of radiation from the cavity.
This (Fernando O. Minotti) statement bears repeating:
the scientific community (universallly-accepted physics) ... Maxwell equations and Special Relativity clearly indicate that no (electromagnetic drive) force is possible without the emission of radiation from the cavity.
Well...Thank you for answering about http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690
What is one to make of all this?
Does anyone know about the status/existence of ongoing experiments?
Homebrew setups seem perhaps able with the knowledge on this thread to be able to answer lots of questions. However I do not have a garage.
Anyone with an idea what the next step will be?
This is what I recall:Well...Thank you for answering about http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690
What is one to make of all this?
Does anyone know about the status/existence of ongoing experiments?
Homebrew setups seem perhaps able with the knowledge on this thread to be able to answer lots of questions. However I do not have a garage.
Anyone with an idea what the next step will be?
How about my broader question?
I went back to the Egan analysis and I note that for the heat locations he came up with for TE in particular, the direction of thrust would be opposite the measured thrust, if the measured thrust were due to radiation or convection. The signs are reversed. The sloping walls are hotter than the end plates.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
What do you think?
...
Please bear with me here, but here's an idea I had to test this at home, coupled with the simple torsion balance I linked to recently.
So I need a copper cavity. Those aren't easy to come by and I'm too lazy to buy copper sheet to build my own and I'd probably build it like crap anyway. But I remembered that I can get my hands on a little brass bell just about anywhere. Look in your Christmas decorations. Once a suitable bell is found, it is a straight forward exercise to drill a hole in it to mount an rf connector, fabricate a suitable loop probe and solder it into the rf connector cup, glue some dielectric material in it, and then cut out a copper sheet and solder the thing shut. A quick and dirty resonant cavity on the cheap.
Now you're going to have to find a signal generator. I guess you can rent one. I have piles of them where I work so no issues there. HP 83712B and 83752B sig gens are very very stable. They go up to 20ghz. If I remember right, you can get +20dbm out of them. I never tried pushing them that high. Never more than 0dbm for me.
Next by some homebrew miracle, find a resonant frequency close to what you calculated and try not to reflect all your power back into the sig gen.
The only right way is to use a directional coupler with power detectors or a network analyzer to measure fwd/reflected power.
If you can't get a sig gen. I know you can hack old Linksys WAP11 access points into CW mode @ around 2.4ghz.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
As far as a dielectric, look in your toolbox. You probably have PTFE tape in there.
You'd have to be pretty creative to sort out cable strain on your setup and you have to put the mess in the basement and isolate it from wind currents/people/pets, whatever. Not easy. I might do it. I'm still thinking about whether is is worth it or not personally to go through the trouble.
John, add proper cautionary video/image for Mulletron...
Please bear with me here, but here's an idea I had to test this at home, coupled with the simple torsion balance I linked to recently.
So I need a copper cavity. Those aren't easy to come by and I'm too lazy to buy copper sheet to build my own and I'd probably build it like crap anyway. But I remembered that I can get my hands on a little brass bell just about anywhere. Look in your Christmas decorations. Once a suitable bell is found, it is a straight forward exercise to drill a hole in it to mount an rf connector, fabricate a suitable loop probe and solder it into the rf connector cup, glue some dielectric material in it, and then cut out a copper sheet and solder the thing shut. A quick and dirty resonant cavity on the cheap.
Now you're going to have to find a signal generator. I guess you can rent one. I have piles of them where I work so no issues there. HP 83712B and 83752B sig gens are very very stable. They go up to 20ghz. If I remember right, you can get +20dbm out of them. I never tried pushing them that high. Never more than 0dbm for me.
Next by some homebrew miracle, find a resonant frequency close to what you calculated and try not to reflect all your power back into the sig gen.
The only right way is to use a directional coupler with power detectors or a network analyzer to measure fwd/reflected power.
If you can't get a sig gen. I know you can hack old Linksys WAP11 access points into CW mode @ around 2.4ghz.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
As far as a dielectric, look in your toolbox. You probably have PTFE tape in there.
You'd have to be pretty creative to sort out cable strain on your setup and you have to put the mess in the basement and isolate it from wind currents/people/pets, whatever. Not easy. I might do it. I'm still thinking about whether is is worth it or not personally to go through the trouble.
So I need a copper cavity. Those aren't easy to come by and I'm too lazy to buy copper sheet to build my own and I'd probably build it like crap anyway. But I remembered that I can get my hands on a little brass bell just about anywhere. Look in your Christmas decorations. Once a suitable bell is found, it is a straight forward exercise to drill a hole in it to mount an rf connector, fabricate a suitable loop probe and solder it into the rf connector cup, glue some dielectric material in it, and then cut out a copper sheet and solder the thing shut. A quick and dirty resonant cavity on the cheap.
Lol yes. I know what I'm doing. Radars and satcom are what I do. The biggest issue here is trying to couple rf from a 40 pound sweep generator to the test article because of the cable strain. Rf cables are heavy and rigid and using them would screw everything up. If I can't figure this out, I'm not doing it. I'd rather have a small rf generator balanced right there on the thing, running on batteries, but I'm not spending money buying one. I want to use an actual sweep generator so I can tune it and provide an rf sweep. But the cable issue is daunting. I'm thinking of using an xbee pro or putting an old wifi access point in CW mode. I have those. The best I can get in any case is +20dbm, so the test article needs to be small and light. The low powers involved would mean keeping the thing running for hours or days to see if any rotation happens.QuoteHave you worked with microwave before?
The solution for the trouble you note used on the ARC Lite is to use liquid metal (Galinstan) contact pots, where the pot is stationary and a small cylindrical cross section probe rotates inside the liquid. The pots are arranged directly above the C-flex bearings so there is no displacement at all of the probe inside the Galinstan. This is what gives the ARC Lite such fantastical resolution as compared to all the previous torsion balances, such as the one at the Austrian Research Center.
As to this notion of a superconducting resonator, I would just note that in order to line the chamber with YBCO, at the least the outside of the resonator would need to be immersed in liquid nitrogen and linked to a dewar. This is a total nightmare for the balance and contrary to the opine over at Reddit, there is no way to do something like this for $2k. I doubt it can be done for $2M.
. . . there is no way to do something like this for $2k. I doubt it can be done for $2M.
I remember that too. The issue is that this stuff needs to rotate freely on the balance arm. Just as Mullet is looking at how to feed power through the balance fulcrum without causing resistance that would show up as a spurious source, you would need to feed liquid nitrogen through and that is far more problematic. It's a serious problem. You'd likely need to place the entire cryo system on the mobile portion of the balance and then you'd have a huge period to cope with, and nitrogen boil off to account for. It opens a whole new can of nasty worms. The coolant cycling through the system would generate far larger forces than the thruster, and even though they ought to cancel, that cancelation might be time dependent based on how the coolant cycles. So you could entirely swamp the system with spurious sources you can't get rid of. It's a terrible solution for a tiny budget.
If a resonant frequency can be found with a small superconducting test article, it won't be a matter of detecting tiny force measurements on a delicate balance. If Shawyer type predicted forces bear out, then it would be more a matter of making sure the test article doesn't take off.I should note too, that YBCO's superconductivity is highly frequency dependent. I don't think it works past low VHF. Certainly not microwave.
If a resonant frequency can be found with a small superconducting test article, it won't be a matter of detecting tiny force measurements on a delicate balance. If Shawyer type predicted forces bear out, then it would be more a matter of making sure the test article doesn't take off.I should note too, that YBCO's superconductivity is highly frequency dependent. I don't think it works past low VHF. Certainly not microwave.
So I need a copper cavity. Those aren't easy to come by and I'm too lazy to buy copper sheet to build my own and I'd probably build it like crap anyway. But I remembered that I can get my hands on a little brass bell just about anywhere. Look in your Christmas decorations. Once a suitable bell is found, it is a straight forward exercise to drill a hole in it to mount an rf connector, fabricate a suitable loop probe and solder it into the rf connector cup, glue some dielectric material in it, and then cut out a copper sheet and solder the thing shut. A quick and dirty resonant cavity on the cheap.
For the cavity itself, metal 3d printing is now ubiquitous and affordable.
http://gpiprototype.com/services/metal-3d-printing.html (http://gpiprototype.com/services/metal-3d-printing.html)
https://www.solidconcepts.com/technologies/direct-metal-laser-sintering-dmls/?gclid=CMCy2rWzmMECFQqCfgod3A4AXw (https://www.solidconcepts.com/technologies/direct-metal-laser-sintering-dmls/?gclid=CMCy2rWzmMECFQqCfgod3A4AXw)
(and many others)
A simple CAD design and a submission to a 3d printing company can yield a well-formed prototype cavity within 1-2 weeks. The prototype can be formed of a variety of metals. The prototype could be tested in a non-superconducting configuration first to get a baseline. Then, the inner portion of the cavity could be lined with YBCO film, cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures, and tested in a superconducting configuration.
It even appears that some universities have access to 3d printers that are capable of printing using superconducting materials. Perhaps this would make a good senior project or thesis for an ambitious student. I always wished I'd taken more advantage of my university's resources when I had the chance.
http://www.tamuk.edu/engineering/departments/mien/3D%20Printers/index.html (http://www.tamuk.edu/engineering/departments/mien/3D%20Printers/index.html)
...it is the DIY vs. the Institutional mindset. I remember my high school teacher using liquid nitrogen in the classroom near students to freeze and smash banana peels into bits.
... it would be more a matter of making sure the test article doesn't take off.
I think he’s right. He doesn’t understand. This is a very high Q resonator. The higher the Q, the narrower the bandwidth it can resonate at. Without resonance the Q will drop off to between 1/100 and1/10,000 what it is normally. The resonator needs to resonate. You cannot simply sweep a resonator and think you are changing the frequency only, when the Q is only for small bandwidths of specific frequencies.
Since Eagle has a PLL resonance matching circuit, there is little trouble with this except that you need to note you have not one but two variables as you have changed the amount of active mass.
….you need to note that you have not one but two variables, as you have changed the amount of active mass.
This is much more difficult and much more expensive than you understand. Just the high speed auto matcher used up at George Hathaway’s lab cost $150k. And make no mistake, it is the power equipment that one presumes should be easy enough to build that costs so much. It was a big breakthrough for Eagle to get their PLL circuit in place and this is something that Woodward has never been able to do.
If a resonant frequency can be found with a small superconducting test article, it won't be a matter of detecting tiny force measurements on a delicate balance. If Shawyer type predicted forces bear out, then it would be more a matter of making sure the test article doesn't take off.I should note too, that YBCO's superconductivity is highly frequency dependent. I don't think it works past low VHF. Certainly not microwave.
Lol yes. I know what I'm doing. Radars and satcom are what I do. The biggest issue here is trying to couple rf from a 40 pound sweep generator to the test article because of the cable strain. Rf cables are heavy and rigid and using them would screw everything up. If I can't figure this out, I'm not doing it. I'd rather have a small rf generator balanced right there on the thing, running on batteries, but I'm not spending money buying one. I want to use an actual sweep generator so I can tune it and provide an rf sweep. But the cable issue is daunting. I'm thinking of using an xbee pro or putting an old wifi access point in CW mode. I have those. The best I can get in any case is +20dbm, so the test article needs to be small and light. The low powers involved would mean keeping the thing running for hours or days to see if any rotation happens.QuoteHave you worked with microwave before?
Lol yes. I know what I'm doing. Radars and satcom are what I do. The biggest issue here is trying to couple rf from a 40 pound sweep generator to the test article because of the cable strain. Rf cables are heavy and rigid and using them would screw everything up. If I can't figure this out, I'm not doing it. I'd rather have a small rf generator balanced right there on the thing, running on batteries, but I'm not spending money buying one. I want to use an actual sweep generator so I can tune it and provide an rf sweep. But the cable issue is daunting. I'm thinking of using an xbee pro or putting an old wifi access point in CW mode. I have those. The best I can get in any case is +20dbm, so the test article needs to be small and light. The low powers involved would mean keeping the thing running for hours or days to see if any rotation happens.QuoteHave you worked with microwave before?
Bob Ludwick sent me this response:
From: Robert Ludwick
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:19 PM
To: Dr. J. Rodal
In order to stop worrying about how to install a signal cable from the 40 lb sig gen, plugged into the wall, to the amplifier driving the thruster, forget the cable. The sig gen, which puts out +10-+20 dBm, has plenty of beans to drive something like a standard gain horn transmit antenna, and get enough power across a short gap to a lightweight receive antenna on the test rig to drive the power amplifier to saturation. If not, a low power, low noise pre-amp can be hooked to the receive antenna to boost the power up enough to drive the power amp. Suitable preamps are readily available. And cheap.
If one chooses to run the system off a battery, one will be forced to choose between run time and drive power.
If one chooses to power the system through some sort of low drag contacts, then 20-30 watt amplifiers are readily available covering the range of frequencies that have been discussed/tested, and run time can be essentially infinite.
The devil is in the details, as always, but replacing the stiff RF cable with a short transmit/receive link will at least solve that problem.
Bob
I think it is a little too small (higher frequency). I'm trying to stay between 2400-2500mhz.To bad your neighbor or good friend isn't a spinner. It would be straight forward to spin a cavity out of copper, making the mold is the expensive part with set-up second. Twenty years ago it was about $300 for a much more elaborate (parabolic) shape, and much larger mold (24 inches) turned out of hard wood. A soft wood mold is cheaper but won't last. But then you don't need to spin a lot of cavities.
I gotta figure out how to explain to my boss why I really really need to borrow an expensive 83752B sweep generator for a science experiment in my basement.
I wonder if a light enough "carousel" mounted on a sapphire cup bearing...
Shawyer discloses using YBCO film both in his patent application and in reported prototype testing, with positive results.I'll be interested to learn about that, but you need to remember that he had full funding for many years, including those when he won his patent; and he was defunded by the UK because he doesn't have anything and because his notions betray a complete lack of understanding of what group velocity is all about. He is an engineer, not a physicist, and he does not have a real understanding of the concepts he based the device on. If it is working, it is working by mistake and for reasons other than what Shawyer hoped, since what he hoped for was a violation of conservation.
What is needed more than ever is additional confirmation of the effect.
...validation does not require a bunch of home hobbyists look to produce results in the garage with chewing gum...
There might be a neighborhood machine shop with a spinning lathe and the skills to use it.http://www.nextlinemfg.com/metal-3d-printing/?gclid=Cj0KEQiA1qajBRC_6MO49cqDxbYBEiQAiCl5_Heanp4RYgtNQc2YiqRYHNw7cMHmySmZxFBOZzfMUD0aAiP78P8HAQ
Shawyer discloses using YBCO film both in his patent application and in reported prototype testing, with positive results.I'll be interested to learn about that, but you need to remember that he had full funding for many years, including those when he won his patent; and he was defunded by the UK because he doesn't have anything and because his notions betray a complete lack of understanding of what group velocity is all about. He is an engineer, not a physicist, and he does not have a real understanding of the concepts he based the device on. If it is working, it is working by mistake and for reasons other than what Shawyer hoped, since what he hoped for was a violation of conservation.
To bad your neighbor or good friend isn't a spinner...
I may have a very shallow grasp of what can be done or not with microwaves (at what practical efficiencies) but isn't it possible to use a hollow waveguide and interrupt it for 1mm or so, I mean a waveguide with a fixed part linked to wall plugged RF amp, and a mobile part (coaxial with rotation). Would the leak be too big ? Is a waveguide simply not appropriate for efficient power transmission ?
As I understand (weakly, feel free to educate me) RF is "transverse" (E and B orthogonal to propagation) so maybe any power RF wireless transmission scheme might show intrinsic torque between mobile part and fixed part (waveguide or antenna), no ? This could be mitigated by sampling at various relative orientations, or by having a freely rotating part (full 360°) to integrate and even out any orientation dependency ...
I wonder if a light enough "carousel" mounted on a sapphire cup bearing (near point like contact) could have low enough stiction to measure 10µN or so at ends of arm. See attached picture for the overall idea. Alternatively instead of a dry point like contact use a "floater bearing" in water (or liquid metal or low vapor pressure oil for vacuum compatibility). Probably high viscosity but no stiction.
Let it spin, measure thrust from acceleration profile first, then from equilibrium speed against viscosity. Check for periodic dependency of signal relative to angle of rotation (as "real" signal part wouldn't depend on that). Make the whole system as symmetric as possible around the axis (cylindrical walls around...).
...
Need to change the direction of the thrust and the direction of rotation in your pictures:
pic...
it should be pointing the other way around, towards the bigger end, thus the rotation should be clock-wise in your picture.
What's a spinner?As opposed to cutting away metal from stock that is turning a spinning lathe forms sheet stock against a formblock. From formula one race cars wheels to rocket fuel tank domes.
I'm just noting you can't skimp on the balance and vacuum and have people take your findings seriously. Paul March had propellantless thrust in his extra bedroom in 2003-4 and no one took it seriously because he had no vacuum.
To bad your neighbor or good friend isn't a spinner...
What's a spinner? I mean, what do I know. I'm just a magazine publisher (http://www.boardroominstitute.net/our_team.cfm).
Just want to make sure (given the flipping of thrust arrows above that just happened) that the emdrive (if it actually works) flies through the air pointy end first, right? Is the sign of thrust flipped in reaction less engines and I didn't get the memo?
Given the way the "thruster" is mounted in his space plane and the direction for cavity acceleration here:
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
The signs for thrust are flipped in his presentation.
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
Just want to make sure (given the flipping of thrust arrows above that just happened) that the emdrive (if it actually works) flies through the air pointy end first, right? Is the sign of thrust flipped in reaction less engines and I didn't get the memo?
Given the way the "thruster" is mounted in his space plane and the direction for cavity acceleration here:
http://www.emdrive.com/iac2014presentation.pdf
The signs for thrust are flipped in his presentation.
Anyone else in build mode now? I'm gathering materials now, rf connectors and the like.Sounds like you need to have a fire extinguisher.
@Ron Stahl:QuoteI'm just noting you can't skimp on the balance and vacuum and have people take your findings seriously. Paul March had propellantless thrust in his extra bedroom in 2003-4 and no one took it seriously because he had no vacuum.
I'm not trying to be taken seriously. I'm not even taking this seriously. Building one is just for my enjoyment. I don't have access to a vacuum, nor will I spend more than a few bucks on this setup. What I'm going to do since I don't have vacuum, is put the test article inside a sealed container, pack it with tissue or foam to act as an air baffle and to distribute heat around evenly, and put that on the torsion balance.
Next subject:
Here's another emdrive theory paper I found:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document
This guy says he can make it better even.
If NASA is also defining thrust in the opposite direction to jet engines and rocket engines, why is NASA using this wrong definition? Shouldn't NASA at least get this right?
Wasn't the movement of NASA's torsional pendulum towards the big end?
This adds to the confusion in these papers which makes anyone skeptical of the subject matter...
See how NASA defines the thrust direction here (@35 minutes) towards the short end, consistent with Shawyer's spreadsheet, opposite from the dielectric located at the long end:
....
@RodalQuoteSee how NASA defines the thrust direction here (@35 minutes) towards the short end, consistent with Shawyer's spreadsheet, opposite from the dielectric located at the long end:
That stuff about Cannae above....doesn't follow. We're talking about Shawyer's design here.
Next subject:
Here's another emdrive theory paper I found:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document
This guy says he can make it better even.
Next subject:
Here's another emdrive theory paper I found:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01074608/document
This guy says he can make it better even.
Although fantastic as it seems, we ought to bide our time until some empirical evidence can be gathered to support or refute. Working with metglas foils at room temperature would certainly be easier than cooling YBCO film with liquid nitrogen, in an attempt to get an amplified effect.
Seems tough to find pricing information on metglas 2714A. Here is a datasheet and an invite for a price quote:
http://www.metglas.com/products/magnetic_materials/2714a.asp (http://www.metglas.com/products/magnetic_materials/2714a.asp)
Here is some relatively inexpensive metglas tape on ebay, but no indication of it being 2714A.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Metglass-nanocrystaline-tape-for-MEG-generator-power-transformers-inverters-/321587303340?_trksid=p2054897.l4275 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Metglass-nanocrystaline-tape-for-MEG-generator-power-transformers-inverters-/321587303340?_trksid=p2054897.l4275)
Lining the inner cavity of a small test article with such material might be a next step in our exploration.
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.
The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)
The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)
Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.
There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.
Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)
I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.
The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)
The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)
Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.
There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.
Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)
1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.
2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:
a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small end
b) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.
For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:
c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.
d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.
When something doesn't agree with your unexplained postures you write that it doesn't follow. What you mean is that you don't understand or worse, don't want to understand why somebody else thinks it follows. No I am not with you regarding your readings of the Quantum Vacuum and their effect on a piece of Teflon or Polyethylene polymer. They don't make any sense to me, from my academic studies or professional experience. I don't know anybody at major universities that has such theories. If it turns out that there is an interaction between these common polymers and the Quantum Vacuum in a microwave cavity that can practically serve for space propulsion I would be both very surprised and extremely delighted.I think these thrust inconsistencies can be attributed to Shawyer's assertions that this isn't a reaction less drive combined with him being fast and loose with precise terms such as thrust and reaction in order to support that. Literally every single thing Shawyer says that I put to the skeptical test, falls apart. It is certainly possible he built something exciting, but his explanations are lacking. Given that the rest of Shawyer's theory doesn't follow and the thrust paradoxes I presented here, his thrust direction explanation is suspect too.
The Nasa paper doesn't come right out and say it, but it seems the normal thrust orientation is thrust to the left. See figure 9 page 7 and see figure 11 page 9 of Brady et al paper. (This is a loose correlation because this could be normal to Cannae, not the chamber)
The Nasa paper didn't say they flipped the Shawyer design over or provide the sign of the measured thrust. (Did I miss it?)
Given the videos published by Shawyer and his illustration of his space plane (he wants it to go up), it is clear that the direction of thrust for the Shawyer tapered test article is toward the small end. (flying through space pointy end first) I'm not willing to pick this horse based on this paltry evidence, but that is the bias I have.
There is a LOT of inconsistencies here that need to be addressed in a skeptical way.
Other than the video I posted of the thing seemingly moving, is there anything in writing from Nasa that says the thrust was one sign or another?(Not Cannae)
1) You are not explaining why you insist in not taking into account the NASA Cannae test, to determine the direction of thrust vis-a-vis the position of the dielectric and vis-a-vis the slighter larger end of the Cannae device.
2) If NASA's Paul March was consistent in placing the dielectric for NASA's truncated cone consistent with the dielectric placement for the Cannae, it necessarily follows that NASA's definition of thrust force and NASA's measurement in the pendulum was towards the big end of the truncated cone because:
a) we know that NASA placed the dielectric in the truncated cone at the small end
b) NASA is explicit that the thrust force for the Cannae occurred towards the end opposite to the location of the dielectric in the Cannae.
For the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone, it would mean that:
c) Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.
d) the NASA authors would have been negligent in their writing of the "Anomalous..." report if they would have observed the thrust force to have occurred towards the small end of the truncated cone and not mention it, since this would have been the opposite of what they found for the Cannae device.
Your argument is based off the position of the dielectric, which doesn't follow. But if it did follow, your argument support my earlier assertions that putting the dielectric at the big or small end doesn't matter. I am glad to see you are back on board with dielectric thrust.
Side note, let's not get too serious about all this.
When something doesn't agree with your unexplained postures you write that it doesn't follow. What you mean is that you don't understand or worse, don't want to understand why somebody else thinks it follows. No I am not with you regarding your readings of the Quantum Vacuum and their effect on a piece of Teflon or Polyethylene polymer. They don't make any sense to me, from my academic studies or professional experience. I don't know anybody at major universities that has such theories. If it turns out that there is an interaction between these common polymers and the Quantum Vacuum in a microwave cavity that can practically serve for space propulsion I would be both very surprised and extremely delighted.
But it logically follows (to me) that for somebody (like Paul March and Dr. White) who thinks that the dielectric placement in the microwave cavity has an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum, that they (Paul March and Dr. White) would place the dielectric always in a consistent manner both in the Cannae and the truncated cone, and if they wouldn't I would expect them to write about it and explain why they would have placed it inconsistently.
Well the matter is settled then. If you don't believe in the dielectric thrust scenario (even when the Brady et al paper said dielectric was important to thrust) (and the heaps and bounds of literature I've presented supporting it) you can't use the dielectric thrust placement as an argument for or agin. Especially when I've said multiple times that dielectric placement isn't the most fundamental thing here.Sorry to bruise your ego, but you are not (and neither I am) the arbiter of whether the dielectric placement is important or not to interact with the Quantum Vacuum.
The paradoxes still remain. We'll hopefully get answers this fall from Eagleworks anomalous thrust Part II.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes with your spirited debate.
These mounting bolts? How does bolting it down on one side or the other matter? That doesn't change sign. Flipping it changes sign. Bolts pull and push.I could say "look deeper" like you have said sarcastically in the past. But I will refrain.
Just to add my two cents worth, look at a couple of equations.Inertial force is opposite to direction of acceleration. Inertia is a force that opposes motion.
F = m * a , so force must be in the same direction as acceleration, and
F= mdot * Ve, so force must be in the same direction as Ve.
But guess what! Rocket exhaust velocity, Ve is in the direction opposite to rocket engine acceleration. Now, call one thrust and one force, but what ever you name them, Rocket exhaust velocity and rocket engine acceleration have different signs.
I did finish my first attempt to compute Quality factor of the Brady cavity. It took much longer than I had hoped because I had to sleep on the cause of my computer shutting down every half hour. I awoke this morning and turned off the stupid Power management shut down which of course solved that problem. Then I let the run finished but it took 10 hours instead of six. I am now looking at the data and have decided that I won't get useful answers by simulating a perfect metal cavity. Some perfect values-
Frequency- 2.040922E+009; Q- 2,236,229.84
Frequency- 2.119509E+009; Q- 4,437,476.10
Q of 2 to 4 x106 is nice to imagine, but real metal will reduce that and maybe change the frequency. Its a start, though.
And just for giggles, I've attached an image of the fields. Red, magnetic and Blue electric, I think? It does show the effect of the dielectric. Note that the cavity is closed on both ends, it is just that the 0.002 inch copper ends draws to fine a line to show up with the graphic software. That is, if the end lines showed on the graphic they would not be true to the scale of the graphic. But the ends are included in the calculations, I get some really pretty fields without the big end closed.
Paul March would have to have inconsistently placed the dielectric in the truncated cone (as compared to the Cannae device) in a direction opposite as to where he expected the thrust force to occur. Ron Stahl is on record stating that Paul March told him that it was March's idea to place the dielectric in the truncated cone in the first place.I would just note that Paul said he was checking on these linear polymers for the tests since he was wary of the nonlinearities we've traditionally faced with perovskite ceramics. He did not say why he wanted to put the stuff in there at all.
Briefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),
Don't read to much into my fields graphic. It might be weak/strong field. But I'm sure that blue is strong e-field. I'll find out and of course tell all :)QuoteBriefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),
The cavity was excited with an Ez field, (electric field) so the colors are a measure of the electric field. I could excite with a magnetic field if that would be helpful.
Don't read to much into my fields graphic. It might be weak/strong field. But I'm sure that blue is strong e-field. I'll find out and of course tell all :)QuoteBriefly, the -Zc dkbluered makes the color scale go from dark blue (negative) to white (zero) to dark red (positive),
The cavity was excited with an Ez field, (electric field) so the colors are a measure of the electric field. I could excite with a magnetic field if that would be helpful.
There should be an electric field and a magnetic field inside the cavity.
In some modes (TE) the electric field is rotational (transverse). Then the magnetic field is axial. It is obtained as (1/omega) times the curl of the transverse electric field. Where omega is the angular frequency (2 Pi f ).
In other modes (TM) the magnetic field is rotational (transverse). Then the electric field is axial. It is obtained as (c^2/omega) times the curl of the transverse magnetic field.
Higher modes have the fields in smaller domains, with nodes (zero field points) in between the domains.
Preferably, in a numerical solution, you should get both the electric and magnetic fields at once.
If you cannot get both field solutions at once, then by all means excite them separately (but of course keep exactly the same frequency and boundary conditions).
But it logically follows (to me) that for somebody ... who thinks that the dielectric placement in the microwave cavity has an interaction with the Quantum Vacuum, that they ... would place the dielectric always in a consistent manner both in the Cannae and the truncated cone, and if they wouldn't I would expect them to write about it and explain why they would have placed it inconsistently.
Inertia is a property of matter.
Or did I just demonstrate my vast ignorance again?
Upon closer inspection, it is suggested that only the plate having the larger diameter (R1) be made of metglas 2714A to obtain the amplified thrust in the indicated direction.
...It is also not clear to me what kind of power each of the pulses produces from this transmitter. The input power is a maximum 30 V DC at 4 to 20 mA. But since it is a pulsed microwave, this does not necessarily inform what the power would be for each pulse.
Thoughts?
...It is also not clear to me what kind of power each of the pulses produces from this transmitter. The input power is a maximum 30 V DC at 4 to 20 mA. But since it is a pulsed microwave, this does not necessarily inform what the power would be for each pulse.
Thoughts?
Well, the propulsive efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency) of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum. Therefore it is reasonable to consider the energy input as the analog of propellant. While propulsive efficiency itself could be improved with a demonstration of the effect, it would make sense to crank up the input power.
Other than the pesky theoretical details, the thought to be "positive" results continue, after a decade or so of experimentation under wildly varying theories of operation, can barely be discerned from the underlying noise.
There have been a handful of suggestions up thread to increase the input power so as to increase the expected thrust results. You aren't gonna make the Kessler run in a handful of *cough* parsecs on 4 to 20 mA, and I'm thinking you aren't gonna get "positive" results with such a small power input.
But hey. What do I know? I'm just a gadfly (http://alumni.virginia.edu/forum/2013/01/15/help-defeat-confirmation-of-helen-dragas/).
Pathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory.
....
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity
...
But hey. What do I know? I'm just a gadfly (http://alumni.virginia.edu/forum/2013/01/15/help-defeat-confirmation-of-helen-dragas/).
Well, the propulsive efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency) of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not. Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation. The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer. It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial. This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation. Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust. It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.
When asked by the audience (@59 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA
where is this technology going to be 20 years from now (2034) Dr. White says that he has no answer to that.
One doesn't get a sense of any great urge from NASA to really promptly advance this "Research" into anything (certainly not reminiscent of the late 1950's/early 1960's, if somebody would have asked where we were going to be in 20 years from then...)
"In 2008 the Russian Research Institute of Space Systems launched an experimental micro-satellite called Yubileiny (Jubilee) with a "non-traditional" engine which, according to Director Valery Mesnshikov, functions without ejecting reaction mass. Yubileiny (Jubilee), a Russian technology development satellite which was built by NPO PM to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite to be placed into Earth orbit. It launched , 23 May 2008 aboard a Rockot rocket from LC-133 at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Launch was delayed from the end of 2007, and from earlier in 2008. It was a secondary payload to a cluster of three Gonets satellites, utilising the excess capacity of the carrier rocket.
However, it was later stated that "further developments" were needed and nothing further appears to be been published on Russian reactionless drives."
I think this is just Sonny being careful. He's knows enough not to sound too enthusiastic. ....
I think this is just Sonny being careful. He's knows enough not to sound too enthusiastic. ....
Has he has been careful and not enthusiastic with his published conference papers extrapolating quick trips to Enceladus based on a completely unproven technology that he is running now and planning to run in the future at only 0.2% to 0.16% the power that the Chinese and Shawyer have been running ?.
Has he been careful and not enthusiastic in hinting that the EM Drive results may be due to Quantum Vacuum interaction (whose force he predicted should be perpendicular to the E and B fields, therefore perpendicular to the measured force in the Eagleworks microwave cavity tests)?.
Or in proposing that there is an energy paradox even with conventional rocket engines using propellants?
Or in proposing that the negative mass necessary for the Alcubierre drive could be as small as the size of the Voyager probe?
But he must be careful and not too enthusiastic in orally answering a question as to where we are going to be in 20 years with this technology, asked by a youngster in a T-shirt during an informal internal NASA Ames presentation ?
After a few days of really thinking hard about the build, here's what I'm planning:...
Am thinking or trying something with my friend and a copper frustum with a 900w magentron (out of a uWave oven of course.)
Planning to suspend the whole setup on piano wire...
What we hope is that we get a nice deflection cos of the high power.
Is this a good way to go about it?
Am thinking or trying something with my friend and a copper frustum...
I was beginning to worry that everybody else had quit.
Am thinking or trying something with my friend and a copper frustum with a 900w magentron (out of a uWave oven of course.)
Planning to suspend the whole setup on piano wire...
What we hope is that we get a nice deflection cos of the high power.
Is this a good way to go about it?
The magnetrons used in microwave ovens typically cost $25 on EBay and range up to about 1kW power. The trouble with them is, they are not intended for high Q applications and will burn out if attached to a resonator. I first learned of this in discussions with Paul March in 2007 when he and Sonny built their first Shawyer resonator with funding from Gary Hudson. According to Paul, what you need is a continuous wave magnetron, which back then was much more difficult to find and I think the only stuff available on a budget was from Russia. (Paul actually asked me to help him find one which proved to be a difficult task.) Now they're pretty commonplace though, I have no idea why. My guess is they have a commercial application in inductive heating or some such but I'm not familiar with it.
http://www.rell.com/products/Magnetrons/Magnetron-CW.html
As far as suspending it from a wire, that's a common practice. I would just note to you, that especially if the wires are the power leads, clearly demonstrating any action one might observe is not thermal and result of the leads, is a huge task. This is what Tom Mayhood faced in his masters thesis work back in the 90's and he was never successful clearly ruling out that what he had was thermal. http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/graduate-studies-in-physics-at-cal-state-university-fullerton/ And I would just note again, that none of these hobbyist efforts is worth anything if you can't rule out spurious sources. There are many dozens of experiments that have been done over the last couple decades that are clearly useless, as they don't cope with the actual science of eliminating such possibilities.
So again I'd just note, that it is almost impossible for me to see how any low thrust experiment could be useful without providing vacuum. It doesn't need to be much vacuum and it doesn't need to be expensive, but you'll be gluing lots of acrylic together to a hard line to a chamber, and you'll want to pay the cost of a decent roughing pump like the Welch Duoseal 1400. If there were a way to do a decent experiment without vacuum, trust me I'd be all for that, but I don't see one.
As to thrust balance, there are lots of different designs. The suspension notion has some merit, but if one is to completely eliminate thermal as a spurious source, those wires are serious trouble. What I think would be much better, and perhaps in many ways easier; would be to use magnetic suspension. This is surprisingly easy to do and apart from the stray magnetic fields this generates, it solves a host of issues. MIT is doing this and I have to say, I like it! But when you're using these powerful fields for suspension, you both need to make judicious use of something like Mu metal during your testing (once you have thrust) to show you don't have b field coupling, and you'll need to make a fully powered test where your dummy load is as perfect as it can be. For the MET, this is simple: just alter the phase between the 1w and 2w portions of the power supply as this should not matter much for coupling and so provide a good dummy. For thruster designs that use a single frequency component, the task is harder. You'll need to think on that. Here though for your consideration is a small vid of the MIT Space Propulsion Lab balance in acton. It's a fun setup. There's nothing like floating stuff in the extra bedroom. :-)
Well, the propulsive efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency) of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not. Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation. The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer. It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial. This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation. Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust. It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.
I prefer to reach the planets around other stars ;D
BTW remember the thread about Whites warp drive theory where casimir force suitability as exotic matter was argued?
i have read comments about exotic matter in this context just being a weird name for the correct spacial conditions for creating the proper curvature to enable warps.
Indeed it seems that we don't need exotic matter to achieve those ends. I don't know about wormholes and warp drives, but at least getting a ship to move without carrying around propellant. We can engineer the QV to obtain the same results as using exotic matter, without resorting to exotic matter, which may not exist.I think some types of exotic matter do exist.
Regarding the Weekend Interview on Nov. 15 by Sohrab Ahmari ("Finding our place in the stars"), in which I was interviewed:
We physicists have tried to figure out what the laws of physics say about wormholes. We don't yet have an absolutely firm answer, but it appears very likely that the physical laws prevent wormholes from ever existing, and that if wormholes can exist, they cannot occur naturally - they must be created by some very advanced civilization, such as the bulk beings in "Interstellar".
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped. He keeps his core concepts about Q-thruster physics close at hand and doesn't make too many sensational claims. A good move.
@Rodal; in that caricature he looks like a cross between Alfred E. Newman and a garden gnome. :P@Stormbringer, that's the WSJ caricature, did you expect Thorne to look like Michael Caine? :). In fairness to Prof. Thorne, here is a recent picture of him:
a little less Alfred E Newman-y there. Still resembles a gnome though...
But Prof Thorne was the one who suggested Einstein Rosen Bridges for Carl Sagans Sci Fi movie. it's hardly likely he really meant natural wormholes do not occur. He probably meant rather that natural macroscopic wormholes that can be used for travel do not exist or at least do not exist nearby.
True story; there are currently astronomical missions being planned to try to see if some blackholes are in fact "just" wormholes.
as far as i know no one has ruled out blackholes as being a type of wormhole either. and certain things in physics from the range of the strong force to gravity to quantum mechanics imply wormholes must exist. I have read in the last year or so many science articles on such applications of wormholes.
recent ones said entanglement and gravity required wormholes to work.
Thanks for digging up that paper above. That's good stuff!Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped. He keeps his core concepts about Q-thruster physics close at hand and doesn't make too many sensational claims. A good move.
His warp interferometer experiment has implicit in it that the q thruster or a similar device does warp space.
If it didn't he would have nothing to generate the warp he hopes to detect. And it has to be more than just the mass of his test article. if his interferometer was sensitive enough he could hypothetically at least measure the curvature due to the mass of atoms the beam passes by in the instrument. but it is not that sensitive. he hopes that running energy through it will produce a larger curvature than it's inert mass would and thus reach the threshold of sensitivity of the interferometer and his analysis technique.
The Juday White interferometer is not sensitive enough to detect a micro-warp of the magnitude Dr White believes he is creating according to peer reviewed papers in response to his experiment. This is why he is currently learning another type of interferometer for his next series of experiments.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.7772.pdf
As to thrust balance, there are lots of different designs. The suspension notion has some merit, but if one is to completely eliminate thermal as a spurious source, those wires are serious trouble. What I think would be much better, and perhaps in many ways easier; would be to use magnetic suspension. This is surprisingly easy to do and apart from the stray magnetic fields this generates, it solves a host of issues. MIT is doing this and I have to say, I like it! But when you're using these powerful fields for suspension, you both need to make judicious use of something like Mu metal during your testing (once you have thrust) to show you don't have b field coupling, and you'll need to make a fully powered test where your dummy load is as perfect as it can be. For the MET, this is simple: just alter the phase between the 1w and 2w portions of the power supply as this should not matter much for coupling and so provide a good dummy. For thruster designs that use a single frequency component, the task is harder. You'll need to think on that. Here though for your consideration is a small vid of the MIT Space Propulsion Lab balance in acton. It's a fun setup. There's nothing like floating stuff in the extra bedroom. :-)
Please elaborate on the bolded statements above.....Do you think a properly sealed, in an air tight container, insulated and baffled test article could suffice as a substitute for a vacuum, at least for lower power level studies? I'm planning on putting my test article in a sealed, foil lined box surrounded by insulation for example. I want to eliminate conduction convection and radiation as much as possible and not break the bank. Do you think that is enough? I understand the utility of using a hard vacuum as a pentamount test, but using the crawl walk run approach along with proper controls, we can glean useful results.A sealed box is a pretty good cheap and easy test. In fact Woodward used this to debunk the asymmetric Lifter stuff back in the '90's. He put a lifter in a box and even though the Lifter could lift the weight of the box while it was outside the box, it did not generate any net thrust when in the box. (You have to actually weigh the box to know there is not some small force other than ion wind.) So obviously this thrust was just ion wind. It's a nice alternative to a larger system, but even then people argued with him that he hadn't provided what they considered adequate scientific controls. For a cheap test, a box is fine so long as you know it is completely airtight and you can always test outside the box for fields. (An optical on/off switch is good here but be certain the eye is completely sealed.) Getting a small amount of Mu metal foil and waving it around the box is actually better than trying to make your own foil lined box because Mu metal needs to be properly annealed (in a magnetic field in hydrogen atmosphere) to maintain its anisotropy--you can't make a full magnetic shield by folding and soldering it unless you anneal it afterward. What you can do is if you have a supposed thrust signature that you want to demonstrate is not the result of magnetic coupling, just wave it around outside the box. Since it is 100,000X more permeable than air, you'll definitely alter any supposed magnetic coupling by doing this and you'll see changes in measured signature.
Also do you think that elaborate magnetic suspension is better than a low torsion string? Considering we're trying to measure mosquito fart levels of thrust here?
Well, the propulsive efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency) of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low. For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English: The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not. Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation. The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer. It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial. This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation. Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust. It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.
Can you please expand on the bolded statements above? This sounds very interesting. Please explain what you mean.
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from. The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF. M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle. Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
CalTech's Prof. Kip Thorne, also just wrote a popular, 336 pages long book titled "The Science of Interstellar"
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416766293&sr=8-1&keywords=kip+thorne+interstellar
Sorry, he doesn't mention in his book the Quantum Vacuum, negative mass, the Mach Effect, Prof. Woodward's theory or experiments, nor does he mention Dr. White's warp drive theory or his Q-Drive experiments. Thorne does mention LIGO, Randall, Hawking, Witten and Einstein.
this is all true but it is also true that White could be dead wrong about where his effect is coming from and the effect still be there and be exploitable. his device may be a step or two up the chain from where the power originates. It might not be scientifically sound but if it works it works. :)The formalized science will work itself out. it always does.
This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from. The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF. M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle. Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
The formalized science will work itself out. it always does.
And now there is this: http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.htmldelicious :)
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime. At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from. The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF. M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle. Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
The real power is in the gravinertial flux--the universal wind created by and controlled by the MET.What is "gravinertial flux"?
His warp interferometer experiment has implicit in it that the q thruster or a similar device does warp space.
If it didn't he would have nothing to generate the warp he hopes to detect. And it has to be more than just the mass of his test article. if his interferometer was sensitive enough he could hypothetically at least measure the curvature due to the mass of atoms the beam passes by in the instrument. but it is not that sensitive.
Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.
you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.
QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature.
It's simply not true. It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle. Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.Can we play nice please?
I'm easy. I like Woodward. i like White. I like a long list of people you'd giggle at and give me 5 kook point's each for. I like excursions into the fringe. They don't outrage me; by turns they intrigue, amuse and embarrass me. i could name names that would cause a good deal of the people here to have explosive cranial aneurisms like in the movie "Scanners."Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.
you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.
I understand what you're saying and it is always possible to stumble onto a discovery rather than deliberately design a hypothesis or a technology. I am just noting, that's not a safe bet. There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science. This does not compare to the careful science Woodward does. It's voodoo nonsense.
There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science.
QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature. The original interferometer was built to be able to measure something like 11 orders magnitude less curvature than his model predicted from a single capacitor. He measured no curvature. Then he claimed the laser was not precise enough and waited six months on a replacement, and again, no curvature. Then he started reporting he had had "non-null results" which is fanciful at best. If null results were possible, he had null results. That didn't stop him claiming he had real curvature when he gave the address out at U. of AZ.
Now if you're saying he is yet again, claiming the laser was not powerful enough and he lacked resolution in the interferometer, I would just note to you he would have had to be off by more than 20 orders of magnitude for his original experiment for that to be true. It's simply not true. It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle. Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.
Being that the work that Dr. White and Dr. Woodward are both pioneering endeavors, both of which haven't been falsified, I see no reason to have the view that somebody's theory is obviously wrong.
Instead, Sonny has funding and Woodward does not. That is a real scientific tragedy.
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
Nordtvedt effect, is this needed for Mach effects?
his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously telling me I'm not entitled to make rational judgements about what is crackpot and what is not? I need to just accept it all for whatever crazy reason? How is that science based? Science REQUIRES we make these judgements.
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
I find it incredibly interesting how you're calling White and others 'nuts', but somehow don't extend that to Woodward et al. If you've concluded that Sonny's work is pseudo-scientific nonsense, then you must also cede that Woodward is not far behind. He's just about as fringe and his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
IMO, there's only two options here. You can either take the rational and physically justified position that all of this stuff is nonsense and will never work, or you can take the position that there's some possible validity to all these fringe projects and just wait and see the results. You can't just attack certain approaches, and glorify others, despite the fact the two approaches are on the same scientific footing. Well, you can, if you have an agenda and are not interested in what actually will work.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously telling me I'm not entitled to make rational judgements about what is crackpot and what is not? I need to just accept it all for whatever crazy reason? How is that science based? Science REQUIRES we make these judgements.
And there is nothing inconsistent with Einstein in Woodward's work. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
I find it incredibly interesting how you're calling White and others 'nuts', but somehow don't extend that to Woodward et al. If you've concluded that Sonny's work is pseudo-scientific nonsense, then you must also cede that Woodward is not far behind. He's just about as fringe and his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
IMO, there's only two options here. You can either take the rational and physically justified position that all of this stuff is nonsense and will never work, or you can take the position that there's some possible validity to all these fringe projects and just wait and see the results. You can't just attack certain approaches, and glorify others, despite the fact the two approaches are on the same scientific footing. Well, you can, if you have an agenda and are not interested in what actually will work.
I remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.
Woodward's theory is usually referred to as Mach Effect theory, and in fact if Mach's Principle (the name coined by Einstein) is not correct, Woodward's theory is utterly mistaken. All of his work depends upon it being correct.
Nordtvedt effect, is this needed for Mach effects? I see reference to it in Woodward's book.
A freak wormhole opened in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried your words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle. The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time. A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'Hurgs, resplendent in his black jeweled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvunt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green, sweet-smelling steam. As a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, the Vl'Hurg challenged his vile enemy to take back what it had said about his mother. The creature stirred in its sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words drifted across the conference table. Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries. Eventually the error was detected, but over two hundred and fifty thousand worlds, their peoples and cultures perished in the holocaust. You have destroyed most of a small galaxy. Please pick your words with greater care.
Professor McCulloch's latest:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
I note that his 'MiHsC' seems very close to the theories/effects of Woodward and Mach, if not the same thing. He talks of using MiHsC to account for tiny velocity changes in spacecraft.
One of the very few physicists at top institutions that dares write about the science-fiction of wormholes, Kip Thorne ...I think it's important to note that Thorne did his work with his graduate students in 1988, and the original Stargate movie that came before the TV series was in 1994. In this instance, the fiction writers got their ideas from contemporary physics, not the other way around. Also note that although Alcubierre published his warp mathematics in 1997 and Startrek was 30+ years in advance, Roddenberry based his notions on the best gravity physics of the 50's, meaning Dennis Sciama. So in both these cases--warp and wormhole--we find the physicists did the work first and the fiction writers stole from them. The fiction writers fleshed out the notions people later assumed were just fiction and lets face it, they're full of drama as result, but the really visionary stuff came first from the physicists like Kip Thorne.
Actually i cite Dr Kramer of Washington U and some of his audience who were there asking him questions or just trying to show how gosh darned smart they were. but...QuoteA freak wormhole opened in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried your words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle. The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time. A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'Hurgs, resplendent in his black jeweled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvunt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green, sweet-smelling steam. As a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, the Vl'Hurg challenged his vile enemy to take back what it had said about his mother. The creature stirred in its sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words drifted across the conference table. Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries. Eventually the error was detected, but over two hundred and fifty thousand worlds, their peoples and cultures perished in the holocaust. You have destroyed most of a small galaxy. Please pick your words with greater care.
The "book" which one of our notable thread contributors keeps insisting upon not buying, contains many "careful" explanations of the Mach Effect, none of which seem to hold water. Or rather: None of which seem to move mass.One wonders why it would seem that way to anyone given so many years of success in the lab. What are you referring to?
In a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale.
Woodward actually has a theory. A potentially revolutionary, paradigm breaking theory, but he has one. ...
My theory is that his theory is incomplete, unsubstantiated, missing important details, anc continually changing.
It's insightful to note Cramer is famous not only for his fiction published in Analog, but especially for his Transactional Interpretation of QM, and that this theory fits Woodward's remarkably well. These both make judicious use of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory with both advanced and retarded waves . I'm told Cramer has actually published the authoritative paper on how to steer a wormhole, but I've never seen the paper. I know he wrote the forward in Woodward's book, but I have yet to dive into the dynamics of what it takes to steer a wormhole generator. If anyone finds that work by Cramer online, please do share. I'd love to have access.
I posted a video lecture by Kramer. I could find the link again if you are interested.I'm very interested. I've been interested in this for years but never tracked it down. I know Woodward and Cramer are friends of many years. Woodward actually presented at Cramer's birthday party (was it 75th?). Sounds like it was a fun gathering.
Not sure why you'd assume the worst of something you haven't read.
I posted a video lecture by Kramer. I could find the link again if you are interested.I'm very interested. I've been interested in this for years but never tracked it down. I know Woodward and Cramer are friends of many years. Woodward actually presented at Cramer's birthday party (was it 75th?). Sounds like it was a fun gathering.
...[it actually allows you to do some awesome things other than merely bypassing FTL restrictions E.G; you could make a monopole out of a wormhole and you can use it to make some exotic matter for free.
Watched it again. Paul Davies (in the audience at the very end) is a real party pooper. :(It is very revealing and very telling that Cramer himself (when prompted by a question from the audience regarding solving Einstein's equations with the proper boundary conditions) admits (at 34:00 minutes) that he "has done no mathematics at all on this, and it is just a handwaving idea"
i wouldn't put too much stock in that. Cramer is published on this sort of thing. remember what prompted me to post the video was someone looking for some of Cramer's papers.When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement?
Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?:)
When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement.
Mr. Stahl, the readers will determine who is "mischaracterizing" anything or who has an agenda here. I invite you to reconsider who has actually reacted and posted in such a partisan manner.When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement.
That's several times in a row now you've mischaracterized statements on this issue. First of all, Cramer did not say no calculations had been done on topology change, he said he had not done any and in fact, that is not his field. (Even if it were, he is retired.) He also did not say Woodward's work was grasping at straws as you suggest, but rather he said if you want to grasp at straws, he recommends Woodward's work. You've really twisted Cramer's words in a torturous manner here. You're also mischaracterizing and misrepresenting Kip Thorne's words. He did not say he thinks it unlikely wormholes ever exist. He said he doubts they are natural. Actually from the way he made the stateent it sounds as if pressed, he does believe in wormholes. Somehow you have that all twisted around and one wants to ask why all three of these misrepresentations? Do you have a presuppositional bias about wormholes?
One of the very few physicists at top institutions that dares write about the science-fiction of wormholes, Kip Thorne (Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus at CalTech) wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal (this weekend's edition, page A12, November 22/23 2014), to clarify some pretense (triggered by the movie "Interstellar") about the feasibility of whether our human civilization could actually travel through wormholes to reach planets in other stars: (bold added for emphasis)Quote from: Prof. Kip Thorne, CalTechRegarding the Weekend Interview on Nov. 15 by Sohrab Ahmari ("Finding our place in the stars"), in which I was interviewed:
We physicists have tried to figure out what the laws of physics say about wormholes. We don't yet have an absolutely firm answer, but it appears very likely that the physical laws prevent wormholes from ever existing, and that if wormholes can exist, they cannot occur naturally - they must be created by some very advanced civilization, such as the bulk beings in "Interstellar".
Prof. Thorne has been clear that << it appears very likely that the physical laws prevent wormholes from ever existing>>. That's why he went through the trouble to write the letter to the WSJ this weekend: to make it clear that it is his present opinion that naturally occurring wormholes are very unlikely to ever exist. Ditto in his recent book (quoted above). He has investigated "natural occurring wormholes" and he has concluded that they are unstable: if they were ever to form they would naturally collapse almost instantaneously.
Here is a direct link to Prof. Thorne's letter:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-laws-of-physics-regarding-wormholes-1416606575
I remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.
Alto. You make it sound like there was a scientific feud between 'em. There was not.
Einstein could not integrate Mach's principle in his work, but Einstein also realized that his own work was incomplete regarding the definition of inertia.
Sorry. An immaterial bit of background history regarding Woodward's humility regarding Mach, but still an immaterial bit that adds nothing of substance to the pragmatic implementation of Woodwards's work.
In short. Who cares?
Quoting @Ron Stahl: And no, there is nothing in Woodward's work that is inconsistent with Einstein.
"Tomorrow's Momentum Today"Firstly thank you for making that idea clear on this forum. That really intrigued me, because while I've been trying to study the QV as much as possible lately, I saw this video by some professor who said that he and other believe that Quantum Fluctuations (particle pairs) are briefly taking energy from the very immediate future (picoseconds) holding onto it for a short period of time (picoseconds) and then return that energy to the past when they annihilate.
will a copy of this be forwarded to Dr White?I have let one of the senior members in his team know through an electronic message by other media (other than this forum).
In a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale.
This is very close but not quite right. The thing that is losing mass when the fluctuating or active mass gains mass, is the rest of the universe. The reaction mass is just the thing the active mass pushes off of. The source of the gravinertial flux of the universe, is the mass of the universe itself. So it is accurate to say, that when a gravinertial transistor like a Mach-Effect Thruster (MET) harvests momentum from the gravinertial field, it is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion and hastens the arrow of time (entropy). This is in fact why Tom Mayhoood, Woodward's grad student back in the 90's, put the sign on the lab door reading "Tomorrow's Momentum Today". This is accurate to the physical theory.
Though Woodward has never weighed in on the issue so far as I'm aware, i would just note this could be an explanation for Dark Energy, or whatever force it is that is causing the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. We've known since 1997, that instead of the universe expanding ever more slowly as it fights its own gravity as we'd expect, the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and this is the effect we ought to observe from LOTS of gravinertial harvesting from Mach-Effect devices.
Alto. You make it sound like there was a scientific feud between 'em. There was not.Actually there was. I suggest you read the essays devoted to this here:
Einstein could not integrate Mach's principle in his work, but Einstein also realized that his own work was incomplete regarding the definition of inertia.
The reason Mach didn't accept Einstein's ideas is because Einstein didn't accept Machian inertia. Einstein stuck with Newton......Neither of these statements are true. You just are shooting from the hip in ignorance here.
Yet Mach's principal is central to the Mach Effect. Mach rejected Einstein. Therefore Mach effects areYou're having a terrible time trying to form logical syllogisms and really, I dunno what to recommend accept to say, this above is historically, factually and logically wrong. Mach effects are not inconsistent with Einstein. That's just silly and preposterous.
inconsistent with Einstein.
Einstein operated on Newtonian inertia, which was inherent to matter itself.No, we just agreed that Einstein suspended judgement about inertia, and he did. You're straining at stuff and making claims with no reason to suppose you might be correct. Read the book above so you don't make these mistakes. Barbour makes all this quite clear.
So Woodward is going his own way.No, he's not. You do not understand Einstein, you do not understand Mach and you do not understand Woodward. I suggest you actually READ these folks before making any more claims like this.
Indeed Woodward acknowledges his split from Einstein several times in his book:Never. He would never. Not once. Show me where I'm wrong here. I am telling you, never would Woodward deny Einstein is correct. You are making this stuff up and need to start reading for comprehension.
Pages 18 & 22 Woodward uses the terminology "so-called Einstein Equivalence Principle". Showing in my view not complete acceptance.You're fabricating evidence to support your conclusion. Woodward would never agree to what you're assuming in order to get your conclusion. You do realize when you put words in other people's mouths like this, you run dangerously close to liable?
Yet on page 123, He acknowledges EEP as correct: "The reason why the Equivalence Principle is important in this case is that itEinstein never took a stand about the origin of inertia. He liked Mach's explanation, but after their falling out he realized he did not need to rely upon Mach's Principle to get GR.
asserts that the active gravitational, passive gravitational, and inertial masses of an object are
the same. So, if you vary one of the masses, the other masses change, too. If this aspect of the
Equivalence Principle is correct (and it is), then it is almost trivial to show that mass
variation has serious propulsive advantages."
He acknowledges Einstein is correct in every way, but except how inertia works.
One of the major pitfalls in science, and indeed here on this forum, (whereby picking one theory vs another) is the problem of black and white thinking.Oh for cryin' out loud, don't you dare accuse me of being an adolescent. Black and white thinking is a characteristically adolescent trait and anyone who has had ad psych knows this. Your thinking is utterly clouded by your lack of familiarity with the real source materials. You can't draw conclusions because you're operating from ignorance. I suggest you read those sources and stop making claims about people's views that you are for the most part, unfamiliar with.
I don't see any way it can ever ever work.
I don't see any way it can ever ever work.
I'm getting the strong impression that you still think the "mass fluctuations" are just the energy/matter being pumped back and forth in the device.
This is wrong.
This is very close but not quite right. The thing that is losing mass when the fluctuating or active mass gains mass, is the rest of the universe.
Flux capacitors? Couldn't he have picked a better name that didn't scream gobbledygook?
I just can't mess with Flux Capacitors........and I want to go to space really really really bad.
That's where I'm leaving them. If I'm wrong about them.....Mea Culpa.
Edit: Page 73 of the book has a nice equation for the mass fluctuations, but nothing to support it other than a reference to the flux capacitor paper. Flux capacitors? Couldn't he have picked a better name that didn't scream gobbledygook? I am understanding why the "QVFers" have the funding. The PR job on Mach effects is just awful.
It makes no sense to dismiss Mach's ideas on inertia, or Newton, or Haisch&Rueda, or other "QVers." Dollars to donuts, they are all correct.
When the temperature of the tapered resonant cavity wall rises, the resonant frequency will be decreased and the quality factor changed separately.
I'm pretty sure the work in China has been going on since Shawyer lost his funding in the UK. Many people think the Shawyer thing is just a CIA counter-intel OP like the Baker HFGW stuff, only that the Chinese turned around and used back. I've no idea about this either way.
Just an FYI
http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract60316.shtml
I just read the abstract. Just tried and failed on the pdf.
Abstract
A microwave resonator system is made, which has a tapered resonant cavity, a microwave source, and a transmission device. Because of the electromagnetic pressure gradient on the tapered resonant cavity, a net electromagnetic force along the axis of the cavity may be observed, which is needed to verify experimentally the use of the independent microwave resonator system. It is also needed to keep the independent microwave resonator system in resonating state, which is the important procedure to demonstrate the possibility of net electromagnetic force. Thus, a low-signal resonating experiment on the tapered resonant cavity combined with resonating parts is completed to accurately find out the resonant frequency of 2.45 GHz and to analyze the influence of temperature on the resonant state. Experimental result shows that the resonant frequency and quality factor of the independent microwave resonator system are 2.44895 GHz and 117495.08 respectively. When the temperature of the tapered resonant cavity wall rises, the resonant frequency will be decreased and the quality factor changed separately.
Here I attach the full paper
Resonance experiment on a microwave resonator system
Shi Feng Yang Juan Tang Ming-Jie Luo Li-Tao Wang Yu-Quan
(College of Astronautics, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710072, China)
Acta Phys. Sinica Vol. 63, No. 15 (2014)
...something one would consider as if "grasping at straws"...
Ok, time for me to demonstrate my lack of comprehension here again:
1) The Chinese paper says the thermal increase was greatest at the small end of the device.
2) Yet if I remember right, the thrust was towards the large end.
....
::Memo to self. Post while awake! It helps with reading comprehension.::I have found a number of classical physics mechanisms for the results: thermal buckling (published in this forum) under TE modes, thermoelastic dynamic coupling (have obtained solution, too complicated and lengthy to publish in this forum) under TE modes, and electric charge buckling (similar to what happens in MEMS) under TM modes. All three of this require very thin (significantly less than 1/16 of an inch) copper thickness.
Rodal -
So if I follow you correctly this time, you advocate a purely or mostly thermal explanation for the thrust produced by the Chinese devices?
1) No, as I remarked...
2) As apparent from the discussion we had with Mulletron...
3) If the Chinese had a dielectric...
4) Kudos to the Chinese...
5) To this date, nobody...
Rodal: After giving thanks for making it thru a year of "massive" life changes, I sit again before the screen and keyboard and offer you thanks for your patient repetition, over and over again, regarding these results. And the work which you prosecute with remarkable thoroughness.
At least I grasp at real straws with detectable mass.
(You too, Mulletron, Frobnicat, and others.)
Rodal, this has to be an NSF first - professional physics paper rebuttal exclusive to NSF! Impressive.
It would be possible for Eagleworks to eliminate thermal buckling as source of observed force by simply changing the attachment point of the device to the balance, no?
. . .To this date, nobody (not the Chinese, not Shawyer, not Cannae and not NASA) has reported force measurements of the EM Drives in a vacuum, and nobody has reported measurements as a free-body (as done by Goddard with his early rocket experiments or by Freeman and Taylor under Project Orion for their explosive-impulsively loaded experiments).
Finally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.
g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
...
Finally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.
g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
...
The zeros of the Bessel functions of the first kind (J) ?
BesselJZero[0, 1] = 2.40483
BesselJZero[0, 2] = 5.52008
BesselJZero[0, 3] = 8.65373
and so on?
Finally got a few (snowed in) minutes to look at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator.
g= (X[subm,n])^2*c^2*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2)) where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
...
The zeros of the Bessel functions of the first kind (J) ?
BesselJZero[0, 1] = 2.40483
BesselJZero[0, 2] = 5.52008
BesselJZero[0, 3] = 8.65373
and so on?
X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0
[1,0]= 3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etc
Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for g. Needs more work but should be able to get to forces if I get time to keep head clear.
So...do we have a straight thermal artifact/effect? Or a thermal/artifact effect plus something else?
So...do we have a straight thermal artifact/effect? Or a thermal/artifact effect plus something else?
IMHO, we have heat artifacts (mostly evident to me in the TE012 plot, figure 22 page 18, and through Rodal's exhaustive work) and something else. That something else is IMHO related to Casimir effects, as I've posted.
It certainly is interesting how it seems that TE mode seems to be the best Q thruster solution in terms of input power to thrust. I've been torn between the diamagnetic QED vacuum idea and the asymmetric QV/RF interaction with atoms, not summing to zero in the asymmetric cavity, giving rise to a force. Given the TE mode outlier, I think the answer is both. I remember Dr. White mentioning in the video I recently posted here, that a great RF solution doesn't necessarily mean a great Q thruster solution. I've taken that to heart.
Over the last few days, I've been trying fit all the Casimir momentum/dielectric stuff I've posted over the last few months, into the framework of Cavity QED. I think this is the final concept to understand in order to create a fully functional QV framework in order to describe the Anomalous thrust from these two devices. I can't find a single paper on Casimir cavity QED, but I've found talk about this stuff dating way back to 2004. These guys were chasing the same idea long long ago it turns out.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?14897-Casimir-Effect-and-Vacuum-Fluctuation-Propulsion
In a nutshell, what I'm getting at here (and I'll put it into math if I can ever find the confidence to express ZPE IIRC 1/2 hbar omega for the given frequencies inside a sloping cavity), in a sloping resonant Casimir cavity, you end up with a situation inside the cavity where the modes allowed isn't just a simple to derive value, as you would get in parallel plates for example (see the Milonni video). You end up with a continuously changing value over the length of the cavity. This Casimir force acts on the atoms in the cavity. That is one side of the interaction....... The other side of the interaction is the RF behaving in a similar manner, both interacting with the atoms in the air and dielectric in the cavity. The resulting non zero summation of these competing forces is IMHO the cause of the thrust.
So essentially I've reached the pinnacle of this avenue with a horrendous math problem that is Dr. Milonni caliber. Will I ever figure it out? Probably not. It is fun trying to find One-Eyed Willy's gold though. Somebody will eventually figure it out.
Slide 66 :)
http://aphyr.com/media/pwl-2014-casimir.pdf
Cosmic acceleration: MiHsC predicts this as an effect of the cosmic horizon.
The low-l cosmic microwave background anomaly: MiHsC predicts it as above.
Cosmic mass: just enough to keep the cosmos closed: MiHsC predicts it.
The anomalous motion of galaxy clusters: MiHsC predicts it without dark matter.
Bullet cluster: MiHsC might fit, but there's not enough data to test it yet.
The galaxy rotation anomaly: MiHsC predicts it without dark matter.
Globular cluster rotation anomaly: MiHsC might fit, needs a computer model.
Observed minimum galactic masses: MiHsC agrees.
Is Alpha Centauri-C bound?: MiHsC predicts it's bound, agrees with independent data.
Flyby anomalies: MiHsC agrees partly, but the analysis is incomplete.
Pioneer anomaly: MiHsC agrees, but there's another 'complex' thermal explanation.
Tajmar effect: MiHsC predicts it.
EmDrive: MiHsC predicts it.
Poher experiments: MiHsC is consistent, not enough data to test numerically.
Podkletnov effect: MiHsC predicts the non-spinning part of it. needs more work..
Sonoluminescence: MiHsC predicts the observed core temperature.
Planck mass: MiHsC predicts it within 26%.
Quasars are aligned with each other and cosmic filaments.
The Andromeda satellite galaxies orbit in a disk.
Galactic relativistic jets.
The wide binary rotation anomaly.
Anomalous, non-tidal, increase of lunar distance.
Increase in the Astronomical Unit.
Modanese effect: jump of masses near a cooler superconductor.
Anomalies in the gravitational constant, big G.
Slide 66 :)
http://aphyr.com/media/pwl-2014-casimir.pdf
At approximately 47:30 he addresses the EM Drive, he says it appears to violate conservation of momentum, which is "not good", he says it is a "mystery". He doesn't buy Dr. White's virtual particles plasma explanation as the quantum vacuum "is not a plasma":
Rodal, this has to be an NSF first - professional physics paper rebuttal exclusive to NSF! Impressive.
It would be possible for Eagleworks to eliminate thermal buckling as source of observed force by simply changing the attachment point of the device to the balance, no?
Thank you :).
The best way to eliminate the possibility of thermal buckling (or electric charge buckling as experienced in MEMS) or thermoelastic dynamic coupling is simply to make the copper wall thick enough. I am confident that for the power inputs and diameter dimensions that have been used a 1/4 inch thickness of copper would be significantly more than enough to rule out the possibility of buckling. 1/8 of an inch is much more than enough for the NASA experiments.
Concerning support if the whole truncated cone has equal stiffness it would not make much difference where it is supported along the axis of the cone, as the reaction force still would be transmitted. In a real situation there may be compliance at the connections that will diminish the measured dynamic magnification factor of the pendulum response, but the reaction will still be measurable (although the dynamic magnification factor may be smaller due to greater compliance: lower stiffness at the connections). So I think that the best way to rule out buckling is simply to employ thicker copper, as buckling is a nonlinear function of thickness.
I've been trying to formulate a thought experiment to examine the momentum as the RF radiation enters and leaves the dielectric, but no luck so far. Does light slow down in the dielectric?
How can the RF waves effectively travel 15% farther while slowing in the dielectric and traversing the same physical distance?Something doesn't seem right about that.
difference between dielectric constant of 1.76, and 4.2That seems like an awfully large spread for a ~580mhz freq range.
OK, second look (found one error so far) at the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
g = (X[subm,n])^2*(c/4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0
[1,0]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etc.
Lambda < cutoff wavelength.
Lambda is the free space wavelength c/f.
giving thrust per photon:
T = (X[subm,n])^2*(h/4*pi^2)*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
If the number of photons is power * Q / hf then I should be able to try some numbers (and possibly find more mistakes)
T = P*Q*(X[subm,n])^2*(c/4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
Doesn't look too obvious, but we'll see what else I've missed.
Dispersion, like rainbow dispersion? Interesting.....
How does dispersion work with a CW spike operating in a single mode? I need to take a moment with a Twix.
Please forgive my ignorance. This is a new way of thinking for me. So do you mean dispersion due to doppler frequency shifting inside the cavity due to acceleration of the cavity? Maybe? Trying to grasp what you're saying is all.
the cavity sitting on the bench isn't accelerating wrt any observersIt all depends on how small an acceleration one is considering, as astronomers need to subtract time-varying Doppler shifts due to Earth's changing velocities if they are interested in equal or smaller changes due to the actual motions of the stars. For example,
But there are other ways to get dispersion besides acceleration induced doppler shifts.
the cavity sitting on the bench isn't accelerating wrt any observersIt all depends on how small an acceleration one is considering, as astronomers need to subtract time-varying Doppler shifts due to Earth's changing velocities if they are interested in equal or smaller changes due to the actual motions of the stars. For example,
1) the centripetal acceleration at the Equator is about 0.034 m/sec^2 (0.3% of the gravitational acceleration g).
2) The centripetal acceleration of the Earth around the Sun is 0.0059 m/sec^2 (0.06 % of the gravitational acceleration g).
3) The centripetal acceleration required for our Sun and solar system to orbit the center of our galaxy is very small: 1.9*(10^(-10)) m/sec^2.
the cavity sitting on the bench isn't accelerating wrt any observers
Quotethe cavity sitting on the bench isn't accelerating wrt any observers
Well I concede it is accelerating wrt observers after you turn it on. Gotta look at cause and effect here.
That was a good analysis. I wish you could run your math wizardry on my "unpossible" post from yesterday.
Here's what I'm looking at:
So Molly is an electron in the dielectric, Chris and Jim are a bunch of random vacuum fluctuations. Will and Richard Grieco (not shown :() are photons of the RF EM waves. Will and Richard Grieco only dance when "What is Love" is playing when RF is turned on. The dance club is a new place called Copper Conical Frustum. The idea here is to get Chris to dance harder than Jim. I want Molly to dance across the room. Instead of being buffeted in the middle, like what usually happens over at The China Club. ;)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/possible.html
"It has also been suggested by Millis that any asymmetric interactions with the vacuum energy might provide a propulsion effect."
#vacuum polarization #zitterbewegung
Disclaimer: I promise I wasn't tanked while writing this analogy. Just trying to communicate a concept in a hilarious thought provoking way.
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
g = (X[subm,n])^2*(c/4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
where a anb b are the end plate radii and the X are the Bessel function zeros.
X[subm,n] = m-th root of dJ[subn](x)/dx = 0
[1,0]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [1,2]=3.05, [2,0]=7.02, [2,1]=5.33, [2,2]=8.54, [3,0]=10.17, etc.
Lambda < cutoff wavelength.
Lambda is the free space wavelength c/f.
giving thrust per photon:
T = (X[subm,n])^2*(h/4*pi^2)*lambda*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
If the number of photons is power * Q / hf then I should be able to try some numbers.
T = P*Q*(X[subm,n])^2*(1/c*4*pi^2)*lambda^2*((1/a^2)-(1/b^2))
TM211 T=9.84e-5 vs 9.12e-5 P=16.9 Q=7320
TM211 T=2.39e-4 vs 5.01e-5 P=16.7 Q=18100
TE012 T=1.32e-4 vs 5.54e-5 P=2.6 Q=22000
Close enough for gummint work ?
So if you have the dispersion relation for any cavity, can you now directly calculate Thrust (force ?) as GR ??
Edit: Does it also mean, as in the acoustic case, that you can optimize the cavity shape ?
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.
Quoting Rodal.
1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?
2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?
3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?
4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?
OK, third time is the charm (same error only twice) on the proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity. Quickie calculation to rotate waveguide into doppler frame for acceleration g.QuoteQuoting Rodal.
1) What is the actual acceleration (formula used for acceleration and variables inside it) of the accelerating frame of reference under your consideration?
2) Defining thrust force of a rocket to be in the same direction as the motion of the rocket, what is the direction of the thrust force according to your EM drive formula? Is it directed towards the small end or towards the large end?
3) For your formula, does it make a difference whether the cavity's mode is TE (outer circumferentially electric with an inner axial magnetic field) or TM (outer circumferentially magnetic with an inner axial electric field) ?
4) So the proposition that an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator gives you a net thrust (as long as the ends have different diameter) proportional to Q even though there are no photons escaping the cavity? What is the explanation for conservation of momentum? That one has to consider an open system because of the accelerating frame of reference?
Would you mind answering these questions presented earlier? Particularly question 4. Are you interacting with anything that is outside of the cavity?
The Dr. White QV thrust model got a down peer review.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5359
....
Not really peer review. arxiv is the peerless reviewless. But a useful place to find quick opines. You'll find lots of terrible nonsense on arxiv, but you'll also find all sorts of pre-peer review stuff and all the guys from the national labs use it. It also has a lot of crank stuff that would never make it into any peer review journal, so you need to be careful.I agree from a strict point of view concerning the strict definition of peer-review, but I think that Mulll meant that a peer (another scientist or engineer), reviewed Dr. White's proposal and debunked it, which is also a true statement. Anyone can publish in arxiv: the papers in arxiv are not reviewed by anyone. Recently they added a requirement which (if I recall correctly) is that to publish in arxiv one needs to get endorsements from just two authors that have already published a few papers at arxiv. Arxiv has a disclaimer that this is not peer-review of course, and just a way to reduce the huge number of submissions to arxiv. Meanwhile a lot of the authors that got to publish in arxiv during the past few years without any endorsements, can continue to publish whatever they want in arxiv without any peer review or any endorsements.
No, sorry, the answer to life, the universe and everything is not 376.73031
Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video:
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2013/05/ufo-research-by-nasa-affiliated.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ed8uo/dr_eric_w_davis_of_nasas_breakthrough_propulsion/
http://massufosightings.blogspot.com/2013/07/exopolitical-disclosure-dr-eric-w-davis.html
Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:
Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?
Thanks in advance!
Don't view this report as an Air Force internal study. Rather, it is an AFRL contract report. The author of the contract report apparently has also made controversial statements regarding UFOs (he is quoted as saying UFOs Are "Supremely Advanced Technology") according to the following links and YouTube video
But if that picture cannot be reproduced regularly, at different times, viewing angles, lighting conditions, and so forth, how could it be called remote viewing?
Answer: Analytical overlay. Without corect analysis, the data is useless.
At 30:25 or so, the lecturer talks about Ed, the scambuster, sent by the CIA to vet the results of the experimentors. Turns out, part of the procedure was a previous list of various sites kept in envelopes in a safe. The sites were chosen at random from a previously made list. This is not random enough.
Thanks!Just a quick question because it can be kind of hard to find this:
Has there been any news on experimental followups to the summer paper that got so much attention? How long would you expect it to take?
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the forum. No clue. We're all chomping at the bit for official word.
The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.
Often in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.
Besides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
Posting these videos of remote viewing and alien conspiracy junk are simply ad hominem attacks directed to discredit these individuals. The fact is, these men, were (and still are) key players in the advanced propulsion research community and worked in the industry. They contributed to the original original Nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. Their side projects or beliefs in other esoteric phenomena has no bearing on this subject. If they choose to stare at goats, fine, whatever. If they choose to come up with ideas based on eyewitness reports of strange craft doing strange things(Eric Davis video 37:20), so be it. Those little green men :o have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case. :) The underlying science is there to support it. Yes I find it curious that, if you follow these gentlemen's stories down the rabbit hole, they are all in one way or another, connected to some really strange stuff.
As an aside but on THIS subject we need to recall that in the 1950s it was generally assumed that we were going to find out how to control gravity and other "super-science" stuff "any-day-now". . .
And FYI, nearly everyone in the intelligence community that has anything whatsoever to do with energy and propulsion physics, believes just as Eric Davis believes--that we really did recover something amazing at Roswell. And these guys don't believe this stuff because they're quixotic, or delusional or having hallucinations. They believe it based on fact. So be careful what you say about them. Painting them as whackos is really just a USG propaganda thing. I was not myself a believer in any sense, until Kit, who is a senior officer at CIA who manned the desk for ten years looking into this stuff; challenged me to use my critical thinking skills as a philosopher and look carefully at the evidence. I did that, and became a "believer" in UFO's too. I doubt anyone can look at the evidence objectively, and not come to the conviction that UFO's are indeed visiting spacecraft. And despite the official policy of the US armed forces, EVERYONE involved believes in UFO's. Everyone. Half the guys involved claim to have seen the craft, including Hal Puthoff. According to Kit though, no one really understands how they work, and that's because they're trying to apply ZPF theory to them when they ought to be applying M-E theory to them. They're AC propulsion systems, so it ought to be obvious this is M-E, not ZPF.
you guys are confusing me.
Quoteyou guys are confusing me.
and Mulletron somehow validates this.....
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.
[...]
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.
[...]
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.
The existence of the quantum vacuum is not in doubt; nor the casimir force; not the dynamical Casimir effect.
None of these things enable the use of the quantum vacuum for propulsion, without an extension to quantum field theory as it is currently understood. So yes, it very much is still a theoretical problem.
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
I'm sorry but this is just not true. As explained in detail in Woodward's book, QV is not the only explanation for the Casimir Effect. ZPF and QVF adherents often misrepresent this issue, by claiming the observed data on Casimir Effect is proof that QV exists, but real physicists know this is not true. The classical explanation for Casimir does not require QVF. That is merely ONE interpretation. It is ONE explanation and it is not the one most physicists hold.
You have been scammed.
"Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha → infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates."[17]"
It makes folks feel good to know they have all the answers, which leads to hubris. But in reality, we know very little.The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.
The problem is that, to paraphrase Nima Arkani-Hamed, it's really hard to come up with something that's not obviously wrong.
Regardless of whether it works or not, many of the explanations* that have been put forward, like Shawyer's original EM Drive paper, are just nonsense. And I'm not talking about whether they disagree with known physics, people are pretty relaxed about that, rather the authors don't even understand the physical theories that they're employing to base their claims on. That's what gets peoples' backs up.
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.QuoteOften in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.
really? funding conspiracy? that's where you're going with this?
Yes like spending billions and building careers searching out dark matter/dark energy/string theory, instead of checking their predispositions and math. The easy road.QuoteBesides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
that's.. not how it works.
I mean; there are plenty of brickbats you could throw at theoretical physics with great justification (the unfalsifiability of string theory, for example), but you've picked a really bad one here.
Well Hawking has changed his mind on black holes so many times it has become clear that this is a work in progress. You function as if we have them figured out.
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
It all boils down to what exactly is a better Casimir cavity.
Sheets of copper don't qualify. But is a start. We need a single sheet graphene cavity to understand whats going on.
I say this because bulk copper (or any bulk conductor) is a mess.
Surface effects et al are eliminated.
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
Ok well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s.
The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.
I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth. It'll tell you again anyway.
ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum. They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass. If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical. In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.
When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time. The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum. I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively. There is no debate about this. Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange. That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy. You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.
So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.
BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate. I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations. ZPF and QVF are a scam. There is nothing to them.
The RF oscillator works very well and I have got some successfull motions of the device as mentioned in the Stavros' paper. The upward motion is not easily reproducible at each test run, but sometime a weak upward motion of the circular rim can be observed. More deep tests must be soon conducted...
I don't know enough to argue the merits of competing ideas for resolving the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, jumping straight into the fray with a No True Scotsman isn't a very convincing approach.
According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
Ron, I am not arguing in favor of ZPfers and all that. (I am really not)
However, you said that if those virtual particles had mass, they would collapse the universe.
And as we know, normal matter (baryonic?) constitutes only 16% of the total matter in the universe. If science understand that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is missing, but you are saying that if virtual particles had mass they would collapse the universe, does that means that if virtual particles had mass they would have a few orders of magnitude more mass than dark matter?QuoteAccording to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:QuoteExcept Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?
I'm not sure what you are saying Paul, but taken at face value your remarks seem to disagree with well established theory. For example, fromOk well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s.
The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.
I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth. It'll tell you again anyway.
ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum. They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass. If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical. In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.
When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time. The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum. I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively. There is no debate about this. Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange. That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy. You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.
So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.
BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate. I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations. ZPF and QVF are a scam. There is nothing to them.
Zero-Point Field
The Zero-Point Field (ZPF) is said to exist in a vacuum -- what is commonly thought of as empty space -- at a temperature of absolute zero (where all thermal radiation is absent; a condition obtained when reaching a temperature of absolute zero on the Kelvin scale). The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero point, for all processes. Theoretical considerations indicate the ZPF should be a background sea of electromagnetic radiation that is both uniform and isotropic (the same in all directions).
The uniform and isotropic nature of the ZPF is important, and explains why it is not readily observed. Fundamentally, the lack of asymmetry of the ZPF prevents its easy identification, just as a fish being absolutely still in a sea of constant temperature and pressure water is unable to detect the water itself.
In some cases, motion through a medium can give rise to asymmetries, thus in turn allowing for the detection of the medium. However, in the case of the ZPF, motion through the “medium” (i.e. the field) at a constant velocity has not been shown to make the field detectable. This is because the field has the property of being "Lorentz invariant." (Lorentz invariance is a critical difference between the modern ZPF and nineteenth-century concepts of an ether.) In fact, the ZPF becomes detectable only when a body is accelerated through space.
There is, of course, a fundamental difference between “detectable” and “useable”. It is likely necessary to go beyond a simple, constant acceleration through space (in order to detect the ZPF), and instead, transition into a variable acceleration in order to tap into the energy of the ZPF. In this case, we can assume with a reasonable confidence that the greater the change in acceleration, the greater the energy derived from the ZPF.
Physicists Paul C. W. Davies and William G. Unruh, showed in the mid 1970s that a moving observer distorts the ZPF spectrum by accelerating through the field. Furthermore, this distortion increases with increasing acceleration. Extending these findings would suggest highly variable accelerations could provide increased distortions, and that these distortions could be used as an energy source. While these distortions are small, they add up rapidly. At the same time, detailed analysis shows that the distortions are fundamentally the origin of inertia.
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:QuoteExcept Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?
Yes. The highest thrust magnitude ever recorded by any M-E researcher was recorded by Paul March in 2003, when testing a Mhz MLT--the thing Sonny ten years later renamed a "Q-Thruster" and claimed supported his model, in order to get his funding from DARPA. The trouble is, as Sonny pointed out for years; that data was not valid since it did not make use of the proper scientific protocols. There was no vacuum to isolate from things like thermal and ionic wind. So there is no reason to suppose that was a useful test, and Sonny made this point many times before he decided to misrepresent Eagleworks and give folks the impression they had done these tests rather than that Paul had done them in the spare bedroom a decade before. Sonny actually claims that his theory accurately predicts thrust from the Q-Thruster but the tests were done almost a decade before his model so obviously, he did not predict anything. He merely matched his model to the data, same as he's done time and again with the warp interferometer, the Q-Thruster, Shawyers's E-M thruster, and Woodward's work including when Woodward had a broken balance.
Back in 2006 when Woodward was first characterizing the ARC-Lite, he posted that he could not explain the readings he had with an MLT on the balance, and simply owned they made no sense to him. Sonny chimed in that his theory (which is not a theory but merely a model) predicts that thrust. Then Woodward found Tom Mayhood had put the wrong Q Flex bearing in the balance and that it was broken under the mass of the balance itself. Obviously Sonny was predicting garbage, except he was not predicting at all. Real predictions always come BEFORE the data. The next year Woodward was again saying he didn't understand the thrust from the MLT and again, Sonny said his theory predicts that thrust, and it turned out the thruster had a short running through the balance and was giving false readings. Sonny does this kind of thing all the time. This is why I always tell people do not trust what comes from that lab. Everyone is all in a fuss over data taken with no vacuum. This is just silly, IMHO.
relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.
Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?
So I'm not sure what you are saying. Casimir force exists, it has been measured many times. ZPF exists, its model correctly predicts results of multiple laboratory experiments measuring said Casimir forces. A somewhat newer result, Casimir forces can be attractive or repulsive, see the above reference.That is really the issue. I don't think anyone doubts Davies and Unruh. It is the later work by Haishe, Puthoff and Ruada that argues inertia comes from virtual particles, that makes no sense, and especially that these particles can be used for propulsion and energy as QVF argues--again makes no sense.
But I agree, at no point does the Casimir effect invoke virtual particles.
can you please address these parts by Mulletron:Quoterelies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.QuoteDid I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?
I will note that Woodward's mother is
can you please address these parts by Mulletron:Quoterelies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.QuoteDid I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?
Well, I am not a cosmologist. I will note that Woodward's mother is, and he is a fair cosmologist himself, so far better to get an answer from his book than from me. However, I think what Mullet wants to talk about is theta, not anisotropy. The question is whether the universe is essentially flat on global scale and the answer is yes, it is. ....
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
If you want to fisk someone's post, rather than putting your comments in blue, I suggest you use the '[/quote' your comment '[quote' method as that way it's clear who's talking.
Can you explain in what way CMB anisotropy would imply inertial aniosotropy under Machian effects?
The anisotropies of the CMB shouldn't affect inertia unless they are on the size scale of the observable universe.
There is at least one discussion of this in Barbour and Pfister, in the piece by Hans Reissner on "Relativity of Accelerations in Mechanics", on page 144, but I don't think this is the issue you think it is. Inhomogeneity does not beget anisotropy. Keep in mind that according to Mach, it is not the closest masses that most affect local inertia it is those that are farthest away. Still, there was this debate in the early teens with Schrodinger and Reissner and you'll find it referenced in Barbour & Pfister. Schrodinger's response is immediately following.
B&F is truly the indispensable source for understanding Mach's Principle in its historic context. However, also see:
"Mach's relativity of inertia does not necessarily imply an anisotropy of inertial masses in an anisotropic universe and the Mach-Einstein doctrine is compatible with the isotropy of mass in each cosmos."
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1992AN....313...65T&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES
http://vimeo.com/108650530
Therefore your quotation of Treder is not applicable to the CMB anisotropy issue referred to by Mullet's excellent observation.
Therefore your quotation of Treder is not applicable to the CMB anisotropy issue referred to by Mullet's excellent observation.
I guess then, I must confess I don't understand the point. The gravitational field of the universe, that gives matter its mass and is the cause of inertia, is in no way connected to the thermal distribution of the CMB. The CMB loosely corresponds to the mass distribution of the universe, so I presumed this is what you were both speaking of. The present thermal distribution is however, beside the point so far as I can see.
I thought you were both referring to the inhomogeneities in the gravitational field one would suppose is there when one notes the inhomogeneities in the CMB. Now you have said more than once you're more specifically talking about the thermal background, and I confess I don't see how this pertains apart from how it illustrates the mass background.
I'll be away Sunday so please don't take it as a slight that you spank me good here and I disappear. I am looking forward to learning what you two are saying. Bon weekend.
Therefore your quotation of Treder is not applicable to the CMB anisotropy issue referred to by Mullet's excellent observation.
I guess then, I must confess I don't understand the point. The gravitational field of the universe, that gives matter its mass and is the cause of inertia, is in no way connected to the thermal distribution of the CMB. The CMB loosely corresponds to the mass distribution of the universe, so I presumed this is what you were both speaking of. The present thermal distribution is however, beside the point so far as I can see.
I thought you were both referring to the inhomogeneities in the gravitational field one would suppose is there when one notes the inhomogeneities in the CMB. Now you have said more than once you're more specifically talking about the thermal background, and I confess I don't see how this pertains apart from how it illustrates the mass background.
I'll be away Sunday so please don't take it as a slight that you spank me good here and I disappear. I am looking forward to learning what you two are saying. Bon weekend.
1) Essentially, the Treder quotation refers to outdated astrophysical data from 1964 and 1961, (Hughes and Drever: their actual experiment probing only the quadrupolar anisotropy) to quantify his alpha and beta in his equations that lead him to disregard anisotropy. Up to date astrophysical data is needed, not these astrophysical data that is more than 50 years old.
2) Also a newer reference is needed regarding an up to date ansatz for the anisotropy of the most distant bodies responsible for Machian inertia. The ansatz dealt with by Treder, including the hypothetical (multiple) ansatz proposed by Cocconi is not longer relevant.
3) As you know, Machian principle determines the inertia of bodies, in a way that the heavy and distant bodies of our universe contribute the most to the inertial forces, thus anisotropy of the most distant bodies matters most. The most distant bodies that we are able to measure are also the ones that are most distant in time (closer in time to the Big Bang) since light took longer to contact us.
It is regrettable that this project remains uncompleted at this point. The framework has
been laid above, but there are several steps left before completion. Its has been shown that
an inertial mass that depends arbitrarily on direction is a priori possible, the dependence
presumably arising from an interaction with anisotropic matter at great distances, in the
spirit of Mach's Principle. Even though the angular dependence is quite general, the pos-
sible couplings to matter in experiments of the Hughes-Drever type is severely restricted,
their actual experiment probing only the quadrupolar anisotropy. Based on their experi-
ment a limit was set on the quadrupolar term in the inertial mass anisotropy. It remains to
compare expansion coe±cients between the inertial mass and matter anisotropy at great
distance through the WMAP data of the CMB. From this comparison, limits can be set on
higher coe±cients to see whether these multipoles are accessible to observation. Finally,
it is desirable to propose a speci¯c coupling scheme between local inertia and distant mat-
ter, possibly through 1=R type interaction. In this manner it may be possible to predict
absolute values of the local multipole coe±cients, and therefore be more certain that the
Hughes-Drever tests have actually ruled out such anisotropy or are yet too insensitive.
I'm loosing feet with what is going on here with ME vs EM. Regarding the former, I understand Ron states it is not incompatible with GR, so not with SR, so not with Lorentz invariance. But it can predict the result of a situation that GR cannot predict, namely situation of a ME thruster thrusting. This "hole" in GR was never noticed because such prediction for such situation never needed, kind of, so possible Machian "extension" (?) to GR forgotten. How could it be that a mundane device like a ME thruster could leave classic frameworks GR + QFT voiceless ?
This is not a problem of interpretation but of prediction, the two classical frameworks GR+QFT (which show no practical incompatibilities when dealing with meso-scale, low energies, low background curvatures) surely would tell the magnitude of the thrust, and that the net thrust is equal or bellow spent_power/c, or more simply 0 if nothing is expelled (no matter, no radiation). I can't see how this very specific device (ME thruster) could leave the equations of GR+QFT befuddled to the point of being unable to be solved or converge clearly on some definite answer. And this answer would be in contradiction with claimed thrust/power that ME theory seems to allow. So it could be that ME theory is more general than GR in the same sense that GR is more general than Newtonian dynamics. GR would have a limited range of validity (all that has been uncontroversially observed and measured accurately so far within mesoscale) and ME theory a bigger one (all that has been uncontroversially observed and measured accurately so far within mesoscale + ME thruster thrusting at thrust/power>1/c). Note that a ME thruster is clearly mesoscale. Not speaking here of wide or dense objects, yet to be accurately observed and characterised in their constitution (like galaxies, gravitationally collapsed bodies...). Anyhow, wouldn't say that GR is "compatible" with Newtonian dynamics. B is compatible with A if B has the same answers as A whenever A answers at all. Or would Machian effect proponents say that GR is only an approximation, valid only in a certain "range", and that can be shown as a limit in this range of a more general Machian physics (B says the same thing as A for a limited configuration space, and a different thing outside) ?
Be assured this is my writing which is confused, not your reading.
Back to the subject, assuming a Machian physics is compatible with SR, that would make the dipole moment of CMB irrelevant, this is (very most likely...) due to our contingent velocity in the bath. Put a rocket at velocity relative to sun (around 370km/s, easy) and the dipole vanishes. And the same experiments onboard that rocket give exact same results as those on earth labs (interactions with local bath excluded). That's what SR tells (Newtonian also), so this is what a SR compatible Machian physics would tell also. Such Machian physics couldn't be falsified by the absence of inertia anisotropy in spite of dipole moment.
As for the higher order anisotropies... this looks like a nice playground, full of hills and hollows. What a GR compatible Machian physics would have to say different from what would say GR : local inertias don't care ? Anyway, it claims to predict an effect that is astounding for most people working with GR under the form of a ME thruster thrusting. Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ? Call it an experiment in fundamental science (à la Michelson and Morley). Better credibility to the theory if it can expose itself to experimental falsifiability on other grounds that notoriously capricious propellentless drives. Are there such other falsifiable grounds ?
the matter distribution around us exhibits clumping which is understood as
Gaussian quantum fluctuations that were stretched into real density perturbations by
the expansion of the universe. Such perturbations in the matter distribution lead to
gravitational perturbations that alter the temperature of photons through redshift and
time dilation. This is known as the Sachs-Wolfe effect and dominates the anisotropy at
large scales. The next contribution to the anisotropy comes from Doppler shifting which does not contribute appreciably until l >30
In this work it is shown that there are some spatially homogeneous
but anisotropic models (Kantowski-Sachs and Bianchi type-III), with a positive
cosmological constant, for which the inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter on
the surface of the last scattering produce anisotropies (in large angular scales # »> 10±)
that do not di®er from the ones produced in Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker
(FLRW) models, if the density parameters are finely tuned.
Plenty of atmo here in NYC. Thought about how it pushes on me, like Mull's QV. If I wanna go thru the atmo w/o expelling propellant, I gotta use a propeller. Mull, yer gonna have to come up with a propeller. And then we can all start calling it the aether.
...No, that's not Mull's model, that's Sonny White's model:
Mull's QV. If I wanna go thru the atmo w/o expelling propellant, I gotta use a propeller. Mull, yer gonna have to come up with a propeller. And then we can all start calling it the aether.
Rodal: Thanx for the English summary comparison of Mull & White's take on their QV models. It is not clear to me what the phrase "medium with intrinsic momentum" means. We all know that TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done. This sense of the term "medium" does not apply.
However, if the QV (which sounds more and more like an aether, if ya ask me) has "intrinsic momentum" which can be selectively manipulated, then it must have a direction.
If this analogy has any applicability, then along with turbulent wake, theaetherQV must also feature "weather", "current", "tides", and what have you, all dependent on the anisotropic distribution of mass in the universe.
I don't know how you could directly see what was happening at such a small scale. ...
Stupid question from the peanut gallery,...again. If we are looking at QVF are we not looking at Planck scale events? I thought that the virtual particle pairs were created and destroyed at the Planck scale. If so, yes the wake might be very short lived and very small. Just a question while I buy John some more peanuts in the intermission.
I'm loosing feet with what is going on here with ME vs EM. Regarding the former, I understand Ron states it is not incompatible with GR, so not with SR, so not with Lorentz invariance. But it can predict the result of a situation that GR cannot predict, namely situation of a ME thruster thrusting. This "hole" in GR was never noticed because such prediction for such situation never needed, kind of, so possible Machian "extension" (?) to GR forgotten. How could it be that a mundane device like a ME thruster could leave classic frameworks GR + QFT voiceless ?
As for the higher order anisotropies... this looks like a nice playground, full of hills and hollows. What a GR compatible Machian physics would have to say different from what would say GR : local inertias don't care ? Anyway, it claims to predict an effect that is astounding for most people working with GR under the form of a ME thruster thrusting. Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ? Call it an experiment in fundamental science (à la Michelson and Morley). Better credibility to the theory if it can expose itself to experimental falsifiability on other grounds that notoriously capricious propellentless drives. Are there such other falsifiable grounds?Woodward makes the argument in his book, which I chided him about for failing at the kinds of detail I would have liked, but basically his argument is that the flatness we observe with WMAP data, does indeed require that Mach's Principle be correct. He says the issue is settled since WMAP. It's a complex issue and again, I think he should have gone slower though the argument and would perhaps make a wonderful academic paper in and of itself, but I don't know if he took the jibe seriously. I think he was writing again last summer but I don't know the subject or contents.
I expect that Machian inertia researchers should have already addressed this issue more in depth and up-to-date than what I have seen, as it is important to completely address anisotropy of inertia vis-a-vis experiments to validate their theory. Therefore I hope that the backers of Machian inertia can uncover better and up-to-date references to properly address the excellent point brought up by Mulletron.
I expect that Machian inertia researchers should have already addressed this issue more in depth and up-to-date than what I have seen, as it is important to completely address anisotropy of inertia vis-a-vis experiments to validate their theory. Therefore I hope that the backers of Machian inertia can uncover better and up-to-date references to properly address the excellent point brought up by Mulletron.
I think they may have addressed the issue, and I'm not convinced the flatness of the universe isn't the issue--that anisotropy is only pertinent if you don't have flatness. There's an interesting paper here:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/dcross/research/papers/oral.pdf
That calls itself incomplete (one presumes because this is pre-WMAP), but seems to be addressing the issue, though I don't have time to read it right now. Just saying from the short glance across that I made, it starts out addressing anisotropy and concludes with arguing about flatness and WMAP. I think anisotropy may only matter so far as it concerns the gradient of the field. If the field is flat, one wonders in what sense any anisotropy could make a difference. But I haven't read the paper. I can however recommend look at Woodward's book in this regard. I haven't got time to search for the particular reference but I may later today. Mullet, if you have an e-version, I suggest look for any WMAP references in the index and you'll find the discussion I'm thinking of pretty quickly.
In this work it is shown that there are some spatially homogeneous
but anisotropic models (Kantowski-Sachs and Bianchi type-III), with a positive
cosmological constant, for which the inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter on
the surface of the last scattering produce anisotropies (in large angular scales # »> 10±)
that do not di®er from the ones produced in Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker
(FLRW) models, if the density parameters are finely tuned.
I am not sure you can conflate the turbulence created in the soler wind with the proposed QVF wake can you? The solar wind is composed of elementary particles which are of quite a different scale from the Planck levels involved in virtual particle production. I understand conceptually where you are going but I don't understand how the scale of the fields are independent of the scale constraints that apply to virtual particle production. My obsession with scale has nothing to do with John's craving for Virginia scale peanuts, which are also virtual at this point.
Rodal: Thanx for the English summary comparison of Mull & White's take on their QV models. It is not clear to me what the phrase "medium with intrinsic momentum" means. We all know that TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done. This sense of the term "medium" does not apply.
However, if the QV (which sounds more and more like an aether, if ya ask me) has "intrinsic momentum" which can be selectively manipulated, then it must have a direction.
If this analogy has any applicability, then along with turbulent wake, theaetherQV must also feature "weather", "current", "tides", and what have you, all dependent on the anisotropic distribution of mass in the universe.
Since the QVF is "foam" in spacetime, then the currents and tides of it should be the local gravitational fields.
If there is anything that modifies the QVF's parameters, you're looking at some serious unexplored physics.
Rodal: Thanx for the English summary comparison of Mull & White's take on their QV models. It is not clear to me what the phrase "medium with intrinsic momentum" means. We all know that TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done. This sense of the term "medium" does not apply.
However, if the QV (which sounds more and more like an aether, if ya ask me) has "intrinsic momentum" which can be selectively manipulated, then it must have a direction.
If this analogy has any applicability, then along with turbulent wake, theaetherQV must also feature "weather", "current", "tides", and what have you, all dependent on the anisotropic distribution of mass in the universe.
Since the QVF is "foam" in spacetime, then the currents and tides of it should be the local gravitational fields.
If there is anything that modifies the QVF's parameters, you're looking at some serious unexplored physics.
I wouldn't take the leap that the QV has anything to do with gravity. Also, the recent talk about currents, tides, wind and turbulence doesn't compute. We're talking about the ground state of scalar and vector fields and vacuum fluctuations here. Not space weather.
The Dr. White proposal to use another thruster to measure the wake is commendable of course, but doesn't make any sense. A vacuum fluctuation lives and dies at extremely small scales. They never leave the resonant cavity. So he's got the right spirit, but that doesn't falsify anything. I'm working on a way to falsify the sail approach that doesn't simultaneously falsify the "pushing against the qv" approach. Honestly the "pushing against the qv" approach can be falsified with just logic, as has been done on this forum by me and others, as well as a recent paper on Arxiv.
Nobody has suggested you can modify any QV parameters. Nothing beyond the established Casimir effect that's been around since the 40s and measured experimentally. In this context, we're/I'm not worried about measuring any attractive/repulsive forces on the cavity walls; rather just the negative vacuum energy wrt the rest of the universe.
The QV doesn't transfer momentum to anything in everyday experience. For example, every electron in your body is being interacted with around all axes at once by these vacuum fluctuations, the net effect is a zero momentum transfer. The Brady et al paper stated the importance of the dielectric to the measured thrust. In order to get any momentum transfer, you have to create asymmetries. Which I have posted about many times.
Based on my work on non-stationary randomness both in physics and in finance, what I understand you are stating, Mull, does not follow. I understand that you are stating that the quantum vacuum which you have previously described as a random walk capable of being biased in a particular direction (by using a polymer with helical anisotropy for example) to transfer directional momentum to a macroscopic copper EM Drive such that it can be used for space propulsion yet you simultaneously state that the momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum to the EM drive would not produce any turbulent amplification of the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I submit that the opposite is more likely: that (in the very unlikely event that) if there were any transfer of momentum from the quantum vacuum to a spacecraft through a EM Drive, such momentum transfer would not be flat in the power spectral density but that there should be a measurable power decay in the power spectral density of the measured "thrust".
That random walk doesn't seem to go anywhere
Based on my work on non-stationary randomness both in physics and in finance, what I understand you are stating, Mull, does not follow. I understand that you are stating that the quantum vacuum which you have previously described as a random walk capable of being biased in a particular direction (by using a polymer with helical anisotropy for example) to transfer directional momentum to a macroscopic copper EM Drive such that it can be used for space propulsion yet you simultaneously state that the momentum transfer from the quantum vacuum to the EM drive would not produce any turbulent amplification of the quantum vacuum fluctuations.
I submit that the opposite is more likely: that (in the very unlikely event that) if there were any transfer of momentum from the quantum vacuum to a spacecraft through a EM Drive, such momentum transfer would not be flat in the power spectral density but that there should be a measurable power decay in the power spectral density of the measured "thrust".
Simply because you can't lower zero point energy, but you can add to it, you should expect some sort of "wake".
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
If the Machian effect is most importantly due to the most distant masses, and those masses can only be observed in the distant past (due to the time that it has taken for their photons to reach us), how is the Woodward Machian theory capable of falsification if what would matter would be the instantaneous state of anisotropy of those distant masses? (that instantaneous state of anisotropy being unobservable because those distant masses can only be observed with the delay due to the speed of light and their very large distance) ?If I understand your question, it is basically how do we falsify the reaction on the rest of the universe. I don't personally know how to do that save to note the accelerated expansion, which is the expected result of harvesting momentum. Since we don't have a proposed mechanism for dark energy, M-E seems to be the only viable candidate, but that is not the same as providing for falsification. So I'm not sure your question has an answer.
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
I thought the standard GR showed that the Universe is not rotating... Forgive me if I am wrongYes, it depends on how one defines rotation of the Universe. The rotating Godel universe model, for example, can be shown to not satisfy experiments but other types of "rotation" are still possible. Usually these types of "rotation" refer to quantities defined not by the overall space-time but by a local slicing of the space-time. Another issue is that while these types of rotation can be included and the model "improves" in some sense many physicists think that the great increase in complexity of including such rotation modeling is not justified by the meager increase in improvement.
I'm loosing feet with what is going on here with ME vs EM. Regarding the former, I understand Ron states it is not incompatible with GR, so not with SR, so not with Lorentz invariance. But it can predict the result of a situation that GR cannot predict, namely situation of a ME thruster thrusting. This "hole" in GR was never noticed because such prediction for such situation never needed, kind of, so possible Machian "extension" (?) to GR forgotten. How could it be that a mundane device like a ME thruster could leave classic frameworks GR + QFT voiceless ?
I think the answer here is to note that as I said, GR does not address the issue fo the origin of inertia. Eistein liked Mach's explantion here. He was in fact the one who coined the name, and it helped him form GR, but GR is not contingent upon Mach's Principle, so you would not expect to see GR extended to include inertia manipulation. It was actually Dennis Sciama back in the 50's who first started connecting GR with MP. Woodward merely followed Sciama's lead when he stumbled upon the surprise in the derivations that showed there was a way to manipulate inertia present. He talks about this in detail in his book.
QuoteAs for the higher order anisotropies... this looks like a nice playground, full of hills and hollows. What a GR compatible Machian physics would have to say different from what would say GR : local inertias don't care ? Anyway, it claims to predict an effect that is astounding for most people working with GR under the form of a ME thruster thrusting. Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ? Call it an experiment in fundamental science (à la Michelson and Morley). Better credibility to the theory if it can expose itself to experimental falsifiability on other grounds that notoriously capricious propellentless drives. Are there such other falsifiable grounds?
Woodward makes the argument in his book, which I chided him about for failing at the kinds of detail I would have liked, but basically his argument is that the flatness we observe with WMAP data, does indeed require that Mach's Principle be correct. He says the issue is settled since WMAP. It's a complex issue and again, I think he should have gone slower though the argument and would perhaps make a wonderful academic paper in and of itself, but I don't know if he took the jibe seriously. I think he was writing again last summer but I don't know the subject or contents.
"Loosing feet with" sounds like an idiom from outside the English speaking world. Can I ask where you're from?
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter areHe didn't change anything. I thought you had the book?
determined by the global matter distribution in the universe.
Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all.
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
which also deteriorates or damp[ens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
In performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened between the two
entangled particles, keeping their quantum mechanical phases the same.
Now suppose that intense laser light is projected on that part of the screen
where one of the entangled particles is expected to emerge and be measured.
Under these conditions a laser signal might be seen on the other screen
where the other entangled particle is expected to emerge, with the laser signal
having passed through the wormhole made by the entangled particles.
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
which also deteriorates or damp[ens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .The book is written specifically for engineers. I'm sure you can understand what's in there. The equations are all there too, but they're mostly endnoted and on those occasions they are in the text, the text makes perfect sense without them. Though you are investing a little trust that the equations are correct, the fact they're peer reviewed for 20 years with no objections, and that the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . .
I can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all !Like GR, SR is not a theory of inertia. You might just as well object that we don't find this in Bernoulli's Principle. It does not pertain.
I mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?Certainly not. Without understanding the physics behind the device, no one would have any idea what it is supposed to do, nor why.
Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?Yes. Woodward did the M-E experiment back in 2008-9 where he fluctuated the mass of a ceramic on a "Rotator" but did not rectify the fluctuation into useful force. He merely detected the fluctuation and noted it was as predicted, at twice the frequency of the power into the device. Years before that he measured the time averaged loss of mass in one of the original design thrusters as predicted by theory, on his modified U-80 load cell. There isn't one experiment that's been done. There are half a dozen such experiments.
The question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ?In some ways the thruster is the most simple. It adds to the Rotator experiment the requirement to oscillate at 2 frequencies instead of just one, and to measure reliably some very small thrusts, but the Rotator has different issues. While such an experiment removes the thrust measurement requirement, it adds things like spinning the caps at several hundred gees without suffering explosive decomposition, and feeding the power through a set of expensive slip rings. It's a toss up which is the simpler. My contention before the Rotator tests was that people would not care what he predicted and found, because he was not demonstrating a useful technology, but rather just a proof of science. I think that was an accurate prediction on my part. People don't care about stuff that isn't useful, and most people are far too skeptical to be convinced by mere proof of science. Take for example the folks here--they don't want to look at the data, so what is the point in proof of science? Take note too of NASA's official word on the subject through their point man in propulsion investigations, Dr. Dennis Bushnell. According to Dennis, NASA does not have the physicists to vet the theory properly (like us here) so what he wants to see is higher thrust. NASA even hired a team from The Aerospace Company to do an investigation, but they also do not have the proper physicists to do the field theory, so all they did was another warmed over engineering look. Given one cannot grapple directly with theory, the only thing left is observation and I think the observations would weigh a lot more, were they of a useful thrust. That means we need a commercial thruster. We could do this on far less money than was thrown away on the Shawyer resonator in the UK or the recent tests at Eagleworks, none of which explain themselves with plausible theory. The problem is, this industry gets treated as a good old boys club, and the boys in the club, like Sonny, get the funds. It doesn't matter they can't explain themselves satisfactorily.
(bold added for emphasis)
... the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
Mmm, in this context I grant you it looks like it's devoid of the theoretical enormities of Shawyer, White... but this is precisely because of that I'd like to have a firmer grasp on the relevant admitted theory first, to make an informed lecture. If this sounds like a poor excuse (it is), again, I would understand you gave up in answering my posts. Meanwhile I do enjoy talking with someone who read it and can interactively respond to the questions of a sceptic engineer passerby. Take it as an exercise to find the right words to convince a typical reluctant science aware community member of the value of those ideas, which are tremendous if correct.Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .The book is written specifically for engineers. I'm sure you can understand what's in there. The equations are all there too, but they're mostly endnoted and on those occasions they are in the text, the text makes perfect sense without them. Though you are investing a little trust that the equations are correct, the fact they're peer reviewed for 20 years with no objections, and that the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
Quote"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . .
Not at all. Mass fluctuations are actually radiation reactions that suffer a time delay. The best way to visualize it is that there is a "gravinertial flux" formed by the gravity of the universe, that produces inertia, and that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions. The energy in the bonds is necessary, because it is the change in those energies combined with acceleration that gives rise to the fluctuation.
QuoteI can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all !Like GR, SR is not a theory of inertia. You might just as well object that we don't find this in Bernoulli's Principle. It does not pertain.
Certainly not what ? I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks (no net thrust, at least not more than power/c would be my prediction, but I'm not a top notch senior physicist) or meet inconsistencies in the equations or interpretation so specific that they know they have reached the limits of usual frameworks.QuoteI mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?Certainly not. Without understanding the physics behind the device, no one would have any idea what it is supposed to do, nor why.
QuoteCan't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?Yes. Woodward did the M-E experiment back in 2008-9 where he fluctuated the mass of a ceramic on a "Rotator' but did not rectify the fluctuation into useful force. He merely measured the fluctuation and noted it was as expected, at twice the frequency of the power into the device. Years before that he measured the time averaged loss of mass in one of the original design thruster as predicted by theory, on his modified U-80 load cell. There isn't one experiment that's been done. There are half a dozen such experiments.
The important thing that hasn't been done so far as I'm concerned, is a high quality thruster experiment done at sufficient frequency that we see commercial grade thrusts. IMHO, what is needed now is a commercial thruster with thrust to mass, thrust to power and temperature bandwidth figures of merit that makes the device useful and can for example be run continuously and have its thrust revered easily on command by altering the phase angle between the 1w and 2w components of the drive signal. There's been quite enough useless proof of science. If that's what you really want is proof of science, read the book. That's what the second third of the book is all about. And really if that's what you are all about asking, what excuse could you possibly have to not go get the answer yourself?QuoteThe question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ? Someone send me a life jacket please.In some ways the thruster is the most simple. It adds to the Rotator experiment the requirement to oscillate at 2 frequencies instead of just one, and to measure reliably some very small thrusts, but the Rotator has different issues. While such an experiment removes the thrust measurement requirement, it adds things like spinning the caps at several hundred gees without suffering explosive decomposition, and feeding the power through a set of expensive slip rings. It's a toss up which is the "simpler". My contention before the Rotator tests was that people would not care what he predicted and found, because he was not demonstrating a useful technology, but rather just a proof of science. I think that was an accurate prediction on my part. People don't care about stuff that isn't useful, and most people are far too skeptical to be convinced by mere proof of science. Take for example the folks here--they don't want to look at the data, so what is the point in proof of science?
We need useful thrust.
Cold charged battery, hot depleted battery, same energy, same mass equivalence, no mass fluctuation.
If this flux gets outside, we have an open system, and SR states that the price is equal or more than 3E8 Watts per Newton.
Time delays seem irrelevant for transformation from chemical bonds energy to kinetic energy back and forth in a bulk, again my battery example (please comment the battery thing : right ? wrong ? irrelevant ? Why irrelevant since it's about conversion from chemical bond energies to kinetic energies in a bulk ?)
Certainly not what ? I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks (no net thrust, at least not more than power/c would be my prediction, but I'm not a top notch senior physicist) or meet inconsistencies in the equations or interpretation so specific that they know they have reached the limits of usual frameworks.
you are trying to sell a Machian physic as fully compatible with GR
And SR does predict "closed system in deep space => no departure from inertial trajectory", so SR compatible Mach theory should say the same, me think.
That random walk doesn't seem to go anywhereNow put that scenario in the video in the Shawyer cavity.
Gazakly. Which gets back to asking again what a "medium with intrinsic momentum" means.
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter areHe didn't change anything. I thought you had the book?
determined by the global matter distribution in the universe.
Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. Is that moving the goal post after WMAP found things like the Eridanus Supervoid, and the Giant Void and other lumps, bumps and holes?
Since we don't have a proposed mechanism for dark energy, M-E seems to be the only viable candidate, but that is not the same as providing for falsification.Citation needed. What about the cosmological constant problem? What about vacuum energy?
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
...which also deteriorates or dampens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
1) Besides, Mull's outright dismissal of any possible description of the quantum vacuum as a superfluid has no basis in physics as discussed at major institutions, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory. None other than the great Paul Dirac inspired this approach.
2) As to scale, I already addressed that, and I'm content with the fact that none other than the great Feynman suggested quantized vortex lines:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_turbulence (actually quantum turbulence is much simpler to model than classical turbulence in fluids like water)
3) Winterberg proposed that the quantum vacuum is a kind of superfluid plasma compound of positive and negative Planck masses, called a Planck mass plasma. Here is a 2013 paper by him: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-381/aflb381m775.pdf where he proposes the following experimental verification:Quote from: WinterbergIn performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened ...
4) How do electromagnetic waves, photons etc. move through space, where there is believed to be nothing? Several prominent scientists have suggested and continue to suggest that it is in fact a superfluid. But you, Fornaro, are allowed to call it the aether.
4) Many thanks for that.
The aether, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, aether having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory#History)
What can "intrinsic momentum" mean, if it does not include a "preferred direction"?
If the energies and momenta are below the excitation threshold then the superfluid background behaves like the ideal fluid, therefore, the Michelson–Morley-type experiments would observe no drag force from such aether. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory#Lorentz_and_Galilean_symmetries)
Therefore, if it does have a "preferred direction", it wouldn't result in a "drag force" on light. Aether way, cough, guess what it would be called?
I'm just askin' the questions here, 'cause typically, I'm the guy giving the Dbug salute, when I'm not engaged in all those deletable activities I'm apparently fond of photographing and posting.
3) This so-called experimental verification is, well, not benign. "A wormhole would be opened..."? Seriously?
2) As to scale, I point to the submarine graphic you posted earlier. The propellor (EM drive) is but so big geometrically. The "turbulent wake" in either water or the QV is much longer geometrically. That's what I mean by scale.
Perhaps this suggests a different experimental approach. Crank up the power, and don't worry if the mass of your apparatus won't move. Try to detect the "turbulent" "flow" of the QV, in the wake of the EM propagator. Whatever the turbulence might be, it will have to extend thru a piece of ordinary space-time.
1) Interesting. Mulletron?
...There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html
..
In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
The vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy !(bold added for emphasis)
Zero-point fluctuations are usually regularized by `normal ordering' - a rather ad hoc procedure which involves the substitution ak ak† rightarrow ak† ak in [63]. In curved space-time a single regularization is not enough to rid <Tik> of all its divergences. Three remaining `infinities' must be regularized, leading to the renormalization of additional terms in the one-loop effective Lagrangian for the gravitational field, which, in an FRW universe becomes: curlyLeff = sqrt-g [Lambdainfty + R / 16pi Ginfty + alphainfty R2 + betainfty Rij Rij]. Renormalization of the first term Lambdainfty rightarrow 0 corresponds to normal ordering. The presence of the second term R / 16pi Ginfty, led Sakharo v to postulate that the gravitational field might be `induced' by one-loop quantum effects in a curved background geometry, since one could recover the ordinary Einstein action by renormalizing the `bare' value Ginfty to its observed value: Ginfty rightarrow Gobs [173]. Thus both the cosmological constant Lambda and the gravitational constant G may be induced by quantum effects. The remaining two terms in curlyLeff give rise to vacuum polarization effects and have been extensively discussed in the literature
A central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates !(bold added for emphasis)
That's your beef with them then....There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html
..
In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
OK, please let me try to understand your point of view, by using this reference that you used to base your ideas:
1) The reference states:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlThe vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy !(bold added for emphasis)
a) Stating that the vacuum state has infinite energy is not acceptable. When the answer to a problem is infinities (as in this statement) it shows that there is something wrong with the analysis.
The reference addresses this in a footnote as follows:
Zero-point fluctuations are usually regularized by `normal ordering' - a rather ad hoc procedure which involves the substitution ak ak† rightarrow ak† ak in [63]. In curved space-time a single regularization is not enough to rid <Tik> of all its divergences. Three remaining `infinities' must be regularized, leading to the renormalization of additional terms in the one-loop effective Lagrangian for the gravitational field, which, in an FRW universe becomes: curlyLeff = sqrt-g [Lambdainfty + R / 16pi Ginfty + alphainfty R2 + betainfty Rij Rij]. Renormalization of the first term Lambdainfty rightarrow 0 corresponds to normal ordering. The presence of the second term R / 16pi Ginfty, led Sakharo v to postulate that the gravitational field might be `induced' by one-loop quantum effects in a curved background geometry, since one could recover the ordinary Einstein action by renormalizing the `bare' value Ginfty to its observed value: Ginfty rightarrow Gobs [173]. Thus both the cosmological constant Lambda and the gravitational constant G may be induced by quantum effects. The remaining two terms in curlyLeff give rise to vacuum polarization effects and have been extensively discussed in the literature
b) This reference does state that the vacuum state has zero momentum. Please show me where does it state that "There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry." or where does this reference state words to the effect that it is possible to break the symmetry of the vacuum state to transfer momentum
2) Please address the following statement in the reference that you used:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.htmlA central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates !(bold added for emphasis)
It would be helpful if you would clarify:I'm not on here to solve the cosmological constant problem. But here's some info:
a) how do you address normalization: the infinite vacuum energy
b) how do you address the issue of vacuum energy gravitating
c) how do you address the issue of "breaking of symmetry" (no directional momentum of the vacuum) to result in useful propellant-less propulsion of the EM Drive by the vacuum
Thank you.Thank you. Hope I answered your questions.
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
....(bold added for emphasis)
The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.
... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen,
...
You don't remember? That you have commented on even?....(bold added for emphasis)
The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.
... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small. The rest of the puzzle is the uneven radiation pressure across the dielectric, as seen inside the Shaywer device, as well as Cannae.
...
Could you please provide a link to the specific papers that you refer (above) as "the van Tiggelen papers" ?
No, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity.I knew you were going to use that as a cheap shot >:( because I forgot to type it fully out. Why do you think I said IIRC? Typical.....anyway that was from the 2003 Feigel paper, which they cited, built upon and refined. And yes going back to the reference, it was velocity.
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
Actually, it is.....
and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small.
and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small.
No, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity. By itself it provides no information what is the acceleration unless one knows the time interval over which it takes place (strictly speaking one needs the velocity function as a function of time)
To know what is the acceleration we need to know what is the time interval over which the velocity gets changed.
If the time interval over which the velocity gets changed is infinitesimally small, this acceleration can approach infinity (or if the time interval is large enough the acceleration can approach zero). Have you seen an acceleration figure from van Tiggelen or the time interval over which this change in velocity takes place?
(Admittedly, the time interval would have to be very small: nanoseconds, for this velocity to entail a large acceleration. To justify the accelerations measured at NASA Eagleworks, the time interval would have to be milliseconds)
See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1294901#msg1294901
NASA Eagleworks measured acceleration = 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2
velocity change = 50* 10^(-9) m/sec
implied time interval = ( 50* 10^(-9) m/sec ) / ( 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2) = 8 milliseconds
Also, is the velocity change universal irrespective of the dielectric material, geometry, and mass of the spacecraft? What assumptions is this velocity figure (50nanometers per second) predicated on?
and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small.
No, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity. By itself it provides no information what is the acceleration unless one knows the time interval over which it takes place (strictly speaking one needs the velocity function as a function of time)
To know what is the acceleration we need to know what is the time interval over which the velocity gets changed.
If the time interval over which the velocity gets changed is infinitesimally small, this acceleration can approach infinity (or if the time interval is large enough the acceleration can approach zero). Have you seen an acceleration figure from van Tiggelen or the time interval over which this change in velocity takes place?
(Admittedly, the time interval would have to be very small: nanoseconds, for this velocity to entail a large acceleration. To justify the accelerations measured at NASA Eagleworks, the time interval would have to be milliseconds)
See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1294901#msg1294901
NASA Eagleworks measured acceleration = 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2
velocity change = 50* 10^(-9) m/sec
implied time interval = ( 50* 10^(-9) m/sec ) / ( 6 * 10^(-6) m/sec^2) = 8 milliseconds
Also, is the velocity change universal irrespective of the dielectric material, geometry, and mass of the spacecraft? What assumptions is this velocity figure (50nanometers per second) predicated on?
Stop picking a strawman off a pithy mistake in wording. I corrected it. Everyone here can see you're misbehaving.
. . .so there is change in chemical bonds energy, but that does not equate to change in energy density in the bulk, this is just a different form of energy (from chemical to kinetic and reverse, millions times a second).
There is no net output or input flow of energy in such harmonic motion (putting aside the decay to thermal agitation). SR is not saying that one form of energy is heavier than another form in such closed system, it does say that it is the same.As 93143 noted, the only closed system here necessarily includes the whole universe. When we keep this in mind we hesitate to speak of closed systems. The gravinertial flux that results from the gravitational interaction between all the universe's parts extends beyond any system we might describe that is short of the entire universe.
Visualizing a "gravinertial flux" won't help. I guess it is backed by equations of state in Woodward's book (?). "...that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions" sounds to me like it would transfer all the "gains" that could be made in terms of "push heavy pull light" from one part of a closed system to another part of the same closed system, with no net thrust overall.
Time delays seem irrelevant for transformation from chemical bonds energy to kinetic energy back and forth in a bulk, again my battery example (please comment the battery thing : right ? wrong ? irrelevant ? Why irrelevant since it's about conversion from chemical bond energies to kinetic energies in a bulk ?)
Er, mmm, it (SR+GR) might not explain the origin of mass as deriving from more fundamental "entities", but it does speak a little bit about inertia, if anything else, from an effective point of view, that is it allows a number of predictions about how something will accelerate or not (relative to inertial frame, say, in deep flat space) given what it does with its mass_energy content (throwing some of it or not). Bernoulli, with all due respect, was not working on a fundamental (effective) theory of dynamics, unlike GR or Newtonian dynamics.
I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks. . .There is no way to make sense of M-E theory without admitting Mach's Principle. If you don't start with the notion that inertia is the result of gravity, you can't have a working theory of inertia and then expect to manipulate it. Anytime anyone tries to make sense of Woodward's work without first accepting Mach's Principle, they will necessarily come up with gibberish. This is in fact why Woodward named the mass fluctuation a "Mach Effect", because it relies upon Mach's Principle that inertia is the result of gravity.
If such Mach theory is compatible with SR, it will predict the same thing as SR in the same situation where SR does predict.But SR doesn't make predictions about mass fluctuations, since it is not inherently a theory of inertia. Bernoulli's Principle concerns inertia, but it is not a theory of inertia, so it does not make inertial predictions per se.
. . .for your average engineer knowing scientists, this is still beyond belief that a well put, reproducible proof of science, below 1000k$ could remain so widely ignored. . .
. . .one spectacular demo would lend less credibility to the tech than spreading a reproducible design of proof of science that barely moves a dust, but does so consistently and beyond doubt. But I'm not in this business, so maybe wrong.
I am genuinely interested in pursuing:
1) What is the acceleration implied by the dielectric/Quantum Vacuum/momentum transfer you propose
2) What is the time interval over which this velocity change takes place
To make sense of any theories my approach is always to calculate, to get numbers to estimate whether the theory matches experimental results.
Apparently pursuing these technical issues with your postings with you is a waste of my time.
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
Actually, it is.....
With no end to upstart theories, not even Einstein's seminal works on relativity can say they're the only game in town. Woodward's work is nowhere near the prestige, acceptance, or levels of proof enjoyed by Einstein, and should not be treated as such without a lot of (as yet forthcoming) experimental proof.
Woodward's ideas are very interesting, and I would like to know more, but I'm looking for experimental proof (or refutation); reading the book can't give me that.
Also if phi/c^2 = 1 that contradicts the MET equation where phi is a variable.
You may be wondering, especially after all of the fuss about phi and c being “locally measured
invariants” in the previous chapter, how the derivatives of phi in these wave equations
can have any meaning. After all, if phi has the same value everywhere and at all times, how
can it be changing in either space or time?
The thing to keep in mind is “locally measured.” As measured by a particular observer,
c and phi have their invariant values wherever he or she is located. But everywhere else, the
values measured may be quite different from the local invariant values. And if there is any
variation, the derivatives do not vanish.
Let’s look at a concrete example. Back around 1960, a few years after the discovery
of the Mossbauer effect (recoilless emission and absorption of gamma rays by radioactive
iron and cobalt), Pound and Rebka used the effect – which permits timing to an
accuracy of a part in 1017 s – to measure the gravitational redshift in a “tower” about
22.5 m high on Harvard’s campus. The gravitational redshift results because time runs
slower in a stronger gravitational field, so an emitter at the bottom of the tower produces
gamma rays that have a different frequency from those emitted and absorbed at the top
of the tower. Pound and Rebka measured this shift for a source at the top of the tower by
using a moving iron absorber at the bottom of the tower. The motion of the absorber
produces a Doppler frequency shift that compensates for the higher frequency of the
source at the top of the tower. From the speed of the absorber, the value of the frequency
shift can be calculated.
Since time runs slower at the bottom of the tower, the speed of light there, measured
by someone at the top of the tower, is also smaller. And since phi=c^2, the value of phi at
the bottom of the tower measured by the person at the top is also different from the local
invariant value. Obviously, the derivative of phi in the direction of the vertical in the
tower does not vanish. But if you measure the value of c, a proxy for phi, with, for
example, a cavity resonator, you will get exactly the local invariant value everywhere in
the tower. From all this you can infer that the locally measured value of phi is the same
everywhere in the tower, notwithstanding that it has a non-vanishing derivative everywhere
in the tower.
BTW, you can look at the nite sky and see that it is anisotropic.That's because the naked eye can't see very far... a few thousand light-years at most (yes, I know you can glimpse the Andromeda galaxy if you are lucky.)
Second that emotion. Still, even I know the difference between velocity and acceleration, so the request for your viewpoints is still to be answered:Quote from: Rodala) how do you address re-normalization: the issue of infinite vacuum energy
b) how do you address the issue that the vacuum energy does not gravitate
c) how do you address the issue of "breaking of symmetry" (no directional momentum of the vacuum) to result in useful propellant-less propulsion of the EM Drive by the vacuum
I don't care if you're wrong in an answer, that's the only way I appear to learn, BTW. But I think they're fair questions.
Quoting @Rodal:
The proponents of the quantum vacuum producing propulsion of the EM Drive as a sail should also try to falsify their theory.
Was just reading about another advanced propulsion game on the SpaceX threads. Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances. No shortage of games to play...
Exactly ! Ps: the doppler frame seems to hint at a Casmir cavity type effect, but so far I can't match the frequency response w/ simple algebra.Aren't the NASA truncated cone and the Shawyer EM Drive dimensions too large to function as such?
Ok...so if I am following Rodal's analysis correctly, Jack Sarfatti's counter to Woodward's argument is...overly broad? Flawed?No, not at all. Jack's review is not overly broad. On the contrary, it is very specific and well defined: with equations precisely showing what he means.
Also if phi/c^2 = 1 that contradicts the MET equation where phi is a variable.
BTW, you can look at the nite sky and see that it is anisotropic.That's because the naked eye can't see very far... a few thousand light-years at most (yes, I know you can glimpse the Andromeda galaxy if you are lucky.)
On bigger scales (Billions of light-years) the Universe is remarkably isotropic. I can't cite any papers, but I believe this to be the case.
Remarkably isotropic turns out to be the same thing as anisotropic. Here's a bit more beyond the nekkid eyeball...
Ok...so if I am following Rodal's analysis correctly, Jack Sarfatti's counter to Woodward's argument is...overly broad? Flawed?No, not at all. Jack's review is not overly broad. On the contrary, it is very specific and well defined: with equations precisely showing what he means.
I only addressed a few words, less than 1%, of his review: the following few words
Exactly ! Ps: the doppler frame seems to hint at a Casmir cavity type effect, but so far I can't match the frequency response w/ simple algebra.Aren't the NASA truncated cone and the Shawyer EM Drive dimensions too large to function as such?
Ok...so if I am following Rodal's analysis correctly, Jack Sarfatti's counter to Woodward's argument is...overly broad? Flawed?No, not at all. Jack's review is not overly broad. On the contrary, it is very specific and well defined: with equations precisely showing what he means.
I only addressed a few words, less than 1%, of his review: the following few words
what about the other 99%? Is Jack correct?
The thing to keep in mind is “locally measured.” As measured by a particular observer,
c and phi have their invariant values wherever he or she is located. But everywhere else, the
values measured may be quite different from the local invariant values.