Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 12:39 amQuote from: Mark7777777 on 10/22/2017 08:26 pmHi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?Hi Mark,I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.So there is movement at the station.Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"
Quote from: Mark7777777 on 10/22/2017 08:26 pmHi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?Hi Mark,I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.So there is movement at the station.
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?
Have done a sizing study based on the images.External:BD: 255mmSD: 151mmFrustum length: 159mmConstant diam length: 181mmInternal:BD: 253mmSD: 147mmFrustum length: 159mmConstant diam length: 181mmFreq: 2.4097GHzMode: TE213 resonance Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length
Quote from: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 01:37 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 01:14 pmWhile these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea I observed only ~10% differences in the Q determined with the -3 dB method between the Windfreak SynthNV and a professional Agilent NVA.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 01:14 pmWhile these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:08 pmHave done a sizing study based on the images.External:BD: 255mmSD: 151mmFrustum length: 159mmConstant diam length: 181mmInternal:BD: 253mmSD: 147mmFrustum length: 159mmConstant diam length: 181mmFreq: 2.4097GHzMode: TE213 resonance Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective lengthIt took me a while to find, but I think this image contains the correct dimensions. Only problem is we do not know where the constant diameter tuning section is tuned to. This will have a big influence on resonant frequency.
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:25 pmUsing the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq. It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.
Quote from: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 02:52 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:25 pmUsing the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq. It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.
Quote from: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 12:39 amQuote from: Mark7777777 on 10/22/2017 08:26 pmHi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?Hi Mark,I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.So there is movement at the station.Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"Hi TOG,What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:59 pmQuote from: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 02:52 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:25 pmUsing the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq. It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.It all depends on their antenna shape. Last I heard they were trying to model a monopole antenna 1/4 wavelength away from big end against the side wall. That is what I have modeled here. But if their antenna is oriented differently or a loop, the mode may be different.
Meberbs - questions of how and why are tough, and can border on the metaphysical. I have to agree that the suggestion that if you mess with the rate of time, you can generate forces produces an immediate reaction of 'Whut?!'.
However, it's right, not just correlation.
And if all you know is the 'time dilation gradient' in a gravity field, then you know the Newtonian gravitational force exactly.
The only contribution I'm really making here is to point out that the usual inferences also run backwards. You can use GR to create models of central field gravity and then see that you have created varying time dilation. But you can also turn it on its head and observe that any variable time dilation/g00 will produce gravity like forces. I think that observation is useful. I'm afraid I don't have anything useful to add on the why or how.
Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.
EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
EmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 04:30 amWork done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.Kinetic energy gain of the emDrive after a change in velocity is frame dependent though, so there will always be a frame where more energy is gained than was input. Also, it is a problem that energy apparently disappears in some other frames.Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 04:30 amEmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 04:30 amEmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.Yes, nothing new, just more clear proofs that the emDrive as described would violate conservation of energy, and can be used as a free energy machine. We have had this conversation before, and last time you repeatedly did not answer simple questions about a solid numeric example.
I agree with all your points but instead of calling it a 'problem', I think it's a feature. It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet. Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 06:13 pmIt's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. This is not about KE being different in different frames (it obviously is), but about the total change of KE as a result of some interaction in a system, which must be the same in ANY inertial frame to satisfy CoE. When you switch frames, KE of all participating objects changes, but this does not give you free energy. However, when some physical interaction causes the total KE to change in a way that is frame dependent (i.e. the difference is frame dependent), it becomes a problem since it allows free energy.
Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view.
I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 06:52 pmCan you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view. If you are talking about the Starshot project, the lasers will feel recoil, which will push the Earth in the opposite direction (however miniscule, but it is enough). As a result, the energy of the total system (sails + Earth) will be properly conserved (i.e. the difference will be the same in any inertial ref. frame, taking into account the initial KE of the Earth and its change).QuoteI know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.Again, you need to take into account all interacting bodies, including the source(s) of the field, which will also gain (or lose, depending on ref frame) KE as a result of this interaction. The total KE change will be frame-invariant, which is required to satisfy CoE.
...I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
Quote from: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 07:17 pm...I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.This thread is about the EM Drive.You wrote (addressed to meberbs) QuoteIs your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws. Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned.