Notsosureofit:The integrated copper frustum test article's -3dB loaded Q-factor for the 80W / ~100uN test runs or 1.25 uN/W was 7,100. That is 1.25 uN/W / 3.33 nano-Newton (nN) / Watt = ~375.4 times as much thrust as a 100% efficient E&M rocket can produce.
Quote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmPaul March,Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable). Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect. I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.
Paul March,Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/31/2015 06:46 pmQuote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmAny thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.Glad to see we agree in principle. Where is your calculation of 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?That is just the efficiency of a photon rocket. I don't feel like typing Greek letters, so the derivation is here. (Note that calculation is for a mirror, so it has double the result.)
Quote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmAny thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.Glad to see we agree in principle. Where is your calculation of 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?
Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmPaul March,Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable). Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect. I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.Quote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 07:01 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/31/2015 06:46 pmQuote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmAny thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics. I'm always hoping for new physics since it could revolutionize space travel, but unfortunately solid new physics results are pretty rare.Glad to see we agree in principle. Where is your calculation of 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt ?That is just the efficiency of a photon rocket. I don't feel like typing Greek letters, so the derivation is here. (Note that calculation is for a mirror, so it has double the result.)Quote from: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: meberbs on 10/31/2015 06:28 pmPaul March,Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error. Could you please clarify for them that explanations such as this page are accurate descriptions of electrodynamics, and something else (quantum vacuum, gravitational warping, dark matter, or other effects not recorded to date) would be required to explain any anomylous thrust? I think this would help discussion on the emDrive to be much more productive.Paul said in previous threads that Dr White, lead Eagleworks scientist, favors the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation conjecture to explain the anomalous EmDrive thrust, implying virtual particles could be pushed on with Lorentz forces like a virtual magnetohydrodynamic drive (this is "new physics" in the sense that the accepted physics currently views the vacuum state as being immutable). Also, Paul himself said several times here that he thinks the EmDrive thrust could originate from a Mach effect. I let you judge if this should be considered as "new physics" or more like some "upgraded old physics" as Mach's principle can be integrated into the "plain vanilla" general theory of relativity without referring to any quantum field like QVF. However, GRT with Mach's principle indeed requires an "action at a distance" field, a flavor of advanced/retarded waves of the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. Personally I like this M-E theory more than QVF since it is CoM-savvy, as momentum transferred to the drive here is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter there (in the rest of the universe, through the gravinertial advanced/retarded Wheeler-Feynman field): CoM is preserved. Whereas with QFV, CoM seems broken since you are pushing off virtual particles that completely disappear after they have been pushed on.Flux Capacitor:I have tried to stay neutral in my support of either Woodward's M-E or White's Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjectures in regards to how CoM is being saluted in these frustum space drives. I will point out to you though about something you said that the virtual particles not being able to convey momentum, could be in error. It's true that the a single charged virtual particle, most likely an electron or positron due to their low mass, only have a very, very limited lifetime in our universe. However IF they collide and annihilate with a different virtual charged particle than they were created with, then any E&M field induced accelerations while they ARE in this universe should be carried forward as newly added momentum in the created gamma photon that continues on the creation / annihilation process. If repeated a sufficient number of times, a momentum wake could be established in the QV, just like the momentum wake created in water by a propeller. One form of this QVF momentum transfer mechanism is discussed in a Rice University paper by Dr. Paul M. Stevenson, (The Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum), that I pointed to before, see attached. One could also view this QV momentum transfer mechanism as a higher dimensional interaction such as discussed in Dr. White's Physics Essays paper found here:http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1396-11-harold-sonny-white-a-discussion-on-characteristics-of-the-quantum-vacuum.html Or the EW group paper found here:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf However all these conjectures require the QV to be mutable and degradable and/or we live in a 5, 6 or even more dimensional universe, which includes Woodward's reliance on Wheeler/Feynman radiations reaction forces, so your mileage may vary... Best, Paul March
{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.
Quote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:F = q [ E + (v × B) ]That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?
Quote from: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 07:07 pm... Meberbs:"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition. In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.If anyone feels like beating their head on the desk and run through this chapter to prove that Paul is right, be my guest. To save you knots, I'll give you a clue it's not there. https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n253/mode/2upSo, there seems to be a hole, for something we don't quite understand...yet.
... Meberbs:"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition. In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 10/31/2015 08:46 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 10/31/2015 08:31 pm{snip}At this hf frequencyies the preferred direction of the external EM field changes billions of times every second.The average force acting on actual (virtual/real) charged particles have to be zero. At time t=0 the field pushes against that particle in a specific direction and after a half wavelength at t=1 the field and therefore the force turns by 180°, while the number of virtual particles remains over the time / is approximately constant.And the creation of this particles is symmetrically (electron-<> positron+) the field acts on both in different directions, alone on this fact the average force have to be zero.If I'm complete wrong please let me know.If you do reverse the electrical field E AS WELL AS the magnetic field B at the same time, then their cross-product the Lorentz Force F is always pointing in the same direction, and accelerate in the same direction both positively charged and negatively charged particles q moving through those fields at a velocity v:F = q [ E + (v × B) ]That's the principle of a magnetohydrodynamic drive (liquid metal, salt water or plasma-based) which can work with steady-state or pulsed DC fields, as well as AC fields.I imagine the electrical and magnetic components of the EM waves in the resonant cavity, and the resulting Poynting vector, act the same way?The field fluctuates over the time(E>-E; B>-B) and q is minus for electrons and plus for positrons, right?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzkraft ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_forceTranslation of wikipedia(DE)pic 1 b)"... When deflection of a particle of charge q in spatially and temporally constant magnetic field as opposed to the deflection in the electric field no work is done, the kinetic energy and therefore the web speed so remain unchanged ..."pic 1 a) and pic 2"...Since the direction of the Lorentz force depends on the sign of the charge q, oppositely charged point charges the same direction of movement are deflected in opposite directions. ..."
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 02:09 pmVax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.Traveler:We looked at using a 3U CubeSat as a means of validating the EmDrive physics, but the cost just for the required parts to build it is still well beyond our current means, even considering that the EW Lab could get a semi-free ride into orbit on one of the ISS resupply runs. (The ISS can and does launch 3U CubeSats from the ISS Japanese lab module.) Since you are considering selling CubeSats commercially, have you priced out how much a 3U at 3kg, 6U at 6kg and 12U at 12kg CubeSat would cost to have it put into orbit even using secondary payload status on flights of opportunity? I'm curious...Best, Paul March
Vax,Your 10mN at 35W max input power requirements appears to be doable. Going to pulsed op at upto 50mN seems doable. 3kg is heaps of mass budget. All the electronics would be on one cubesat pcb with the frustum mounted and secured to the 1u modules frame. What g and vibration freq rates will the thruster and mounting system need to be designed to handle?What are the processes to move forward, what are the precursor qualification requirements and what are the time frames as an overview?Yes of course I need to do the rotary demo rig. That is a unspoken given requirement. Despite others opinion here, the EMDrive does work and this cubesat thruster is really doable.It is my intention to start commercial sales of EMDrives, so the cubesat project will be done with commercial sales as the objective. It will be a high quality and high fidelity build.
Any thrust greater than 3.33 nano-Newtons per Watt would require new physics.
Quote from: SeeShells on 10/31/2015 07:37 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 10/31/2015 07:07 pm... Meberbs:"Some people on this thread have been having trouble accepting that the emDrive requires new physics to explain its thrust if it is not experimental error."I concur with your position that Maxwell's Classical E&M can NOT explain the frustum test results we continue to see, because when you sum up ALL of the Maxwell pressure tensors in the frustum due to all the E&M fields bouncing around inside the cavity and their interactions with any interior components like the PE discs and the active copper layer in the frustum's end and side walls, the NET force answer has to be ZERO by definition. In other words classical E&M cannot provide an explanation for conservation of momentum for a closed E&M system that produces a net thrust.If anyone feels like beating their head on the desk and run through this chapter to prove that Paul is right, be my guest. To save you knots, I'll give you a clue it's not there. https://archive.org/stream/ClassicalElectrodynamics/Jackson-ClassicalElectrodynamics#page/n253/mode/2upSo, there seems to be a hole, for something we don't quite understand...yet.If you want to work through the proof you should start here. Sections 6.8 and 6.9 cover how to calculate momentum and forces in the presence of electrodynamic fields. You can then integrate the forces on each wall of the cavity (applying spherical coordinates and using the techniques in chapter 8 like Greg Egan did to determine the fields), you can also save some work by noting that the fields will be sinusoidal in time for any resonating shape, so the momentum transfer to the walls will always average out to 0. Alternatively you can just note the entire theory is grounded in conservation of momentum since CoM is used in the derivation for the momentum stored in the fields.
.../...Not being satisfied with just this analytical impulsive vs thermal signal separation approach, we are now working on a new integrated test article subsystem mounting arrangement with a new phase-change thermal management subsystem that should mitigate this thermally induced TP cg baseline shift problem once and for-all. And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...Best, Paul March
{snip}I'm very confident this is doable:1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.6) total mass under 1kg.7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.Comments
Quote from: TheTraveller on 10/31/2015 10:47 pm{snip}I'm very confident this is doable:1) totally fits into a standard 1U cubesat frame.2) single pcb plugs into, powered and controlled by cubesat pcb connector.3) uses pulse width and duty cycle modulation to achieve wide range of effective thrust upto around 25mN from integrated 60w X band Rf amp subsystem.4) frustum resonance tracking via real time tracking of lowest VSWR.5) will be qualified in a rotary 1 torr vac chamber test rig.6) total mass under 1kg.7) 1st rotary test before end 1st qtr 2016.CommentsA second market for EM Drives is RCS for larger satellites. 25mN is low but gives high accuracy. Alternatively "burn" for an entire day.v = u + a t so t = Δv / aF = m a so a = F/mcombining t = Δv * m / FTo give a 1 tonne (1000 kg) satellite a delta-v change of 1 m/st = 1 * 1000 / 0.025 = 40,000 seconds (or 11.11 hours)
And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain...Best, Paul March
However all these conjectures require the QV to be mutable and degradable and/or we live in a 5, 6 or even more dimensional universe, which includes Woodward's reliance on Wheeler/Feynman radiations reaction forces, so your mileage may vary... Best, Paul March