Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1633014 times)

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).

It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?

For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.

Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator.

I am probably a bit too tired to go into this but I wanted to note something of interest.  the force/power>=1/c.  This happens when c is reduced.  If we consider momentum conservation, then if light has an effective mass and that effective mass is increased the velocity should decrease increasing the specific impulse per photon.  Slowing light does seem to increase its impulse as some experiments have suggested. 

The mentions of this in connection with the Mach effect made me think.  Also non-locally light can appear to slow down in more dense space in a gravitational well where the plank length is reduced while locally no change in the velocity is apparent. 

Light is inherently connected with the electric fields of charges but it has also been shown the polarized vacuum appears to mask the true charge (as a dielectric) which suggests both an electric field and a polarized vacuum that can appear to change in mass depending on its polarization.  I get the impression the density of this dielectric polarized vacuum is more dense in more gravitational effected areas or fast moving objects.  I think they call them virtual particles or electron-positron pairs that can not exist but for a short time. 

Also the
"ELECTRON ROTATING WAVE THEORY AND THE EM PROPELLER
William H. F. Christie
AIBC
Port Coquitlam, British Columbia"
caught my attention on the link: http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf
Quote
Specifically, a Rotating Wave (RW) is formed by a photon brought into rotation by some
kind of binding energy, creating an electron and positron.
There is probably some kind of connection.  I would really like to know how in the paper: "“Applications of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves to the Global War on Terror by Robert M L Baker, Jr. (2010), http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/War%20on%20Terror%20Applications.pdf that they actually create gravitational waves and detect them across the globe.  One illustration I saw of such quadruple radiation reminded me of possible modulations of e-p pairs or virtual particles in the vacuum.   

Anyways my sense tingles that the increase in mass would again be related to some increased coupling to virtual particles in the vacuum.  I also ponder how they must be repulsed by mutual excitation due to changing magnetic fields (-dB/dt repulsion) while at the same time attracted by their charge distribution.  I wonder if their charge density could determine if they are repulsed or attracted depending on local virtual particle density.  Close to a planet vs deep deep space. 

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 03:43 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?

While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

In all honesty Bob, even I as layman can tell that graph is worthless :
1/ Not enough sampling
2/comparing different configurations and setups really is "comparing apples and oranges"

What has been done there in that graph , is basically comparing diesel engines, with petrol engines, jet engines and rocket boosters while researching the best fuel..
The first rule to make a comparative listing is that only vary 1 parameter in design:

fe if you want to compare different fuels, you try the same rocket engine setup up with ethanol+O2, methanol+O2, kerosene+O2, etc and then see what produces the most thrust...

So, if any meaningful graph needs to be produced for the EMdrive, you have to use the SAME design and gradually ramp up the power and measure the reaction forces (if any).

The listing Shawyer has provided us is purely for marketing purposes in an attempt to get an opinion or believe across to the audience but can not be considered "proof".
It is in a way, dishonest to pretend it is a factual data sheet, where in fact it is nothing more pile of random info...
Hardly anything can be learned from that, because it is obscured by a zillion changing parameters...


Shawyer is not using that graph as formal peer reviewed 'proof' anyway so you are tearing down your own invented straw-man argument. It's part of a presentation, not a scientific paper. It is perfectly legitimate to compare N/KW levels from different devices because the graph is not intending to compare each method, just what has been achieved in total by anybody to make the point that that type of phenomenon is possible. Your critique reads way too much into the meaning. I even said it wasn't proof to begin with. My point was those numbers were reported which is Shawyer's point. And since that's a fact, that they are in the literature, we can discuss them.

Think of N/KW as a number, a metric like corporate profits. Would you demand each corporation make money in the exact same way before you compared the profits. I very much doubt that.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 05:24 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Ok, I'm going to assume your position is that it's a red herring and that the apparent OU doesn't really need a explanation as long as input Rf is greater than the rate of kinetic energy gain in the immediate, local instantaneous rest frame of the device. I can accept that position well enough but I just wish it would be clearly acknowledged by those that hold it. Thanks.
That position doesn't really make sense, because it is a known fact that accelerating reference frames can't have conservation of energy directly applied to them. (There are way to do it, but aren't worth the effort.)

It does not matter anyway, because no matter what happens in the device frame, it does not change the fact that it is trivial to turn such a device into a power generator by having it accelerate and then extracting the kinetic energy.

There are ways to explain this from the device taking energy from somewhere or something else, or even that energy conservation simply does not hold.  Before considering the implications of any of these, the fact of using the device to generated energy must be accepted. Talking about energy conservation in the instantaneous rest frame is simply a way to ignore the issue.

I will not bother responding to TT directly, since TT has not addressed the simple fact that his last spreadsheet he shared did not even have the proper units in the energy calculation. The Pluto spreadsheet he has since shared a screenshoot of seems to have been further changed presumably to remove any remaining resemblance to the laws of physics.

That was Woodward's previous position which has since evolved but it made sense to me if constant acceleration is made from an average of pulses. You compare what happens during each pulse from the inertial frame between them. But if such a force can be created, you really don't need to worry about conserving anything because you can consider the force as an external force to your device. External forces generate momentum and energy. Like a charged particle feels when it encounters EM fields in space. Woodward and team now say, as I understand them, all the energy of motion of the device comes from Mach effects while the energy put into the device just creates the conditions for the Mach effect to work. Effectively like creating a gravity field and then falling through it. You just worry about what it takes to create the force you want and let nature do the rest. I do like that position better. It's much neater.

But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 07:13 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 2479

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.


« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 05:51 pm by X_RaY »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.




yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 09:44 pm by dustinthewind »

Online Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.

But if, as Woodward claims, energy and momentum can be extracted from the rest of the universe via the Mach effect, why isn't Woodward pitching his device to power utilities instead of space agencies?


Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better. I need to purchase a male SMA shorting cap as I had to rig a SMA short during calibration.

Very interesting Smith chart results. Unlike anything I've seen with the flat end frustums.  :o
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 11:22 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.

But if, as Woodward claims, energy and momentum can be extracted from the rest of the universe via the Mach effect, why isn't Woodward pitching his device to power utilities instead of space agencies?

I assume this is the case because it is too early. The phenomenon has yet to be clearly and incontrovertibly taken out of the noise level, validated and become accepted as such. Same as the Emdrive, but with some more firm experimental and theoretical data behind it.

Let's not forget MEGA thrusters come from a theoretical intuition and work first, while the Emdrive may be a serendipitous discovery looking for a theory to explain it.

And even if Prof. Woodward believes it could be taken to greater levels of thrust (e.g. 1g ships), nobody claims to have such hyper-strong MEGA thrusters as of yet.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2017 11:10 pm by tchernik »

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 1807
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better.
Excellent results!!  Congratulations!  Have you tried TM011 yet?

Offline LowerAtmosphere

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 91
Monomorphic -45db loss is unbelievable for DIY!! Wow!

Dustinthewind, your theory implies every charge imbalance within a resonant medium should self-accelerate due to limited pair numbers to communicate with for the wavelets which propagate within it. What makes the EM drive special? It cannot just be the microwaves themselves which cause this. It is the QV determined ratio of excitons/wavelet energy densities within the walls which accelerate the cavity by modifying the alignment of existing permanent dipole moments. Polarizing the QV forces the medium into a set number of alignments rather than chaotic alignment which does not repel linearly. In other words we charge the cavity sections by decreasing entropy in the surrounding QV and increasing the state mixing of the surface waves in the wall or phonons in the cavity. QV works then as an electric gain increasing the E field and providing an increase in magnitude of the state correlation. Only reason this does not become a postive feedback loop is that the electron emission spectra increases accordingly.

Unclear how this would produce any thrust though... perhaps repulsion between sections or the degree of decoherency/existing misalignment which the QV related gain cannot help 'correct'?

Offline spupeng7

(...) I will gladly take the time to collect papers proving this point if the library project (remember some of us promised to collect and share all relevant literature in some sort of public database?) others talked about does not finally happen.

LowerAtmosphere,
if such a collection of relevant literature were put together and made accessible to all, I'm sure it would help students and newcomers to form their own independent conclusions. That will be valuable if the emdrive does prove to be a new transport technology.

Readers here enjoy the controversy regarding conservation of energy issues so I am sure they will be most entertained by the typhoon of rage that will inevitably follow that proof.  :)
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better. I need to purchase a male SMA shorting cap as I had to rig a SMA short during calibration.

Very interesting Smith chart results. Unlike anything I've seen with the flat end frustums.  :o

Jamie:

It looks like you are over-coupled into the frustum.  The Smith chart circle OD should be no larger than from the 50 ohm center point to the perimeter of the chart.  A couple of examples of what I was seeing with the Agilent Field fox VNA at the Eagleworks Lab are attached.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Monomorphic -45db loss is unbelievable for DIY!! Wow!

Dustinthewind, your theory implies every charge imbalance within a resonant medium should self-accelerate due to limited pair numbers to communicate with for the wavelets which propagate within it. What makes the EM drive special? It cannot just be the microwaves themselves which cause this. It is the QV determined ratio of excitons/wavelet energy densities within the walls which accelerate the cavity by modifying the alignment of existing permanent dipole moments. Polarizing the QV forces the medium into a set number of alignments rather than chaotic alignment which does not repel linearly. In other words we charge the cavity sections by decreasing entropy in the surrounding QV and increasing the state mixing of the surface waves in the wall or phonons in the cavity. QV works then as an electric gain increasing the E field and providing an increase in magnitude of the state correlation. Only reason this does not become a postive feedback loop is that the electron emission spectra increases accordingly.

Unclear how this would produce any thrust though... perhaps repulsion between sections or the degree of decoherency/existing misalignment which the QV related gain cannot help 'correct'?

Charge imbalance?  Charge should be conserved.  I am suggesting it's the non-symetric structure and the gradient in the energy density of radiation in the cavity.  If you gather enough light to a single point you can create an electron-positron pair so obviously the vacuum must be able to be polarized by light.  These virtual pairs seem to even surround charges reducing their electric field as would a dielectric.  If they can osculate in the vacuum then like other charges they may be mutually repulsed via rapid osculation or -dB/dt. 




We know the entropy of the universe in increasing.  Could the increase in radiation via entropy be causing the increased expansion of the universe?  The more energetic the changing magnetic field the more mutual repulsion from both the walls and each other.  Near the apex is the most energetic but this also depends on the particular mode. 

« Last Edit: 08/20/2017 05:26 am by dustinthewind »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.




yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2017 05:01 am by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.




yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.

Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating.  I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home.  The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus. 
« Last Edit: 08/20/2017 06:51 am by dustinthewind »

I am back here after a few months to check the status of EmDrive and related research. Good to see that the proceedings and videos of the Estes Park workshop have been published. I am too lazy to go through all the recent pages of this thread ;-) Is there any new development really WOW that I should check?

Offline TheTraveller

Attached is ver 13 of the EmDrive mission calculator.

Several lines are moved, added and removed to try to make it clearer how a fixed amount of input Rf energy is divided between working thrust (Fd) generation and the energy used to do work, via Fd, on mass, accelerating it and creating / increasing KE.

This is not new as Roger has always said that as some of the cavity energy is converted into KE, the working Q and thrust drops. Now that relationship is shown in the equations used in the calculator.

Also shown in the screenshot is how to use Goal Seek to vary Time to ensure a correct calculation. Plus estimated cavity Q changes are shown, with both static and working Q calculations.

Bottom line is, by doing the appropriate calculations,  the EmDrive accelerating mass is not OU. So sorry guys but you can't use an EmDrive to create OU energy. It is just a machine that obeys CofE and CofM.

BTW, assuming Mass (C6) and Specific Force (C5) are fixed, there are only 2 control inputs. Rf power (C4) and Acceleration Time (C9). By varing those inputs, desired dV and/or distance are controlled.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2017 09:01 am by TheTraveller »
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
It looks like you are over-coupled into the frustum.  The Smith chart circle OD should be no larger than from the 50 ohm center point to the perimeter of the chart.  A couple of examples of what I was seeing with the Agilent Field fox VNA at the Eagleworks Lab are attached.

It was a bad calibration. After a new calibration, i'm now getting good results. -52dB return loss! QL of ~7,200 (-3dB method ~3,600 x 2 as RL is better than -40dB). Next step is to rotate the end-plates to see if that can be improved - then bolting the plates in place. 
« Last Edit: 08/20/2017 01:49 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline TheTraveller

It was a bad calibration. After a new calibration, i'm now getting good results. -52dB return loss! QL of ~7,200 (-3dB method ~3,600 x 2 as RL is better than -40dB). Next step is to rotate the end-plates to see if that can be improved - then bolting the plates in place.

Jamie,

Please refer to the section "Measurement of cavity properties from S11" pages 7 & 8 of the attached paper for techniques to measure Qu and Ql using S11 and Smith Chart data.

A Ql of 7,200 with a rtn loss of -52dB seems low.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.




yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.

Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating.  I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home.  The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus. 

Dustinthewind:

Find attached the next EW paper in that series by Dr. White.  I think the key takeaway from Dr. White's work to date is that both the electrons and positrons are NOT unique in time or space, but are just transient holes in the quantum vacuum (QV) that are controlled by 5th dimension based de Broglie guide waves.  I believe that logic can also be applied to ALL subatomic particles, so in the end analysis, all of creation is just QV oscillations and their electric, magnetic and gravitational field interactions.

BTW, find attached two overlaid QV plasma code thrust prediction runs for the EW Copper Frustum being run at 50W with a TM212 resonant mode at 1937 MHz.  As you can see this is a statistical process with lots of noise in it, but it appears to come close to predicting the actual thrust produced by these copper frustums.

Best,, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1