http://www.eagleyard.com/uploads/tx_tdoproductstorage/EYP-TPA-0808-02000-4006-CMT04-0000.pdfis a nice little asymmetric cavity device just itching to get into space.But 50 mW in gets you 2 Watts out?Heh. Forget cavities
They have tested it in a vacuum. What will they do next with the EM drive? Will they possibly build a spacecraft with the EM drive to be tested in orbit?
Quote from: Rodal on 05/24/2015 09:48 pm1) Yang has the thrust force (from the EM field) directed towards the Small End. This is completely opposite to Shawyer's unorthodox "thrust force".I'm starting to wonder if Shawyer doesn't use the term "thrust" as something similar to the "thrust the exhaust gas of a rocket would produce if the cavity was, er, a rocket" (i.e. opposite to the direction of movement), and the term "reaction" as the meaning of "direction of the movement of the cavity" relatively to the "virtual" thrust. I'm not sure, since EmDrive does not expel anything. We don't understand what Shawyer tries to explain with his scheme "thrust vs reaction" (CoM evidently, but it is evident only to him).Everyone else (Eagleworks, NWPU, Cannae LLC, you, me) uses the word "thrust" as the force in the direction of movement, i.e. small end forward.So if Shawyer use the word "reaction" instead of our thrust, how could we understand each other? And I insist, I'm not even sure what term he chose for the direction of movement. That's so trivially weird
1) Yang has the thrust force (from the EM field) directed towards the Small End. This is completely opposite to Shawyer's unorthodox "thrust force".
Quote from: Rodal on 05/24/2015 09:48 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 09:14 pmYang doesn't take the free dynamics bull by the horns.Also, if she's using heat dissipation as an explanation, how does this system manage not to be a photon rocket?(...)No idea how she can get Force/InputPower thousands of times better than perfect photon rocket.(...)Make Q a cyclic, time dependent, PWM duty cycle controlled function, not a constant!It charges until it has enough thrust to overcome the resistance of the mass, but once it moves, that energy is dissipated. P drops back to Pin and Q has to build up again. I don't see any other way...
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 09:14 pmYang doesn't take the free dynamics bull by the horns.Also, if she's using heat dissipation as an explanation, how does this system manage not to be a photon rocket?(...)No idea how she can get Force/InputPower thousands of times better than perfect photon rocket.(...)
Yang doesn't take the free dynamics bull by the horns.Also, if she's using heat dissipation as an explanation, how does this system manage not to be a photon rocket?
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 07:26 pmIf Yang "nailed it" with "no new physics", which of Noether or Einstein did she decide to trash? Because you have to choose, and either way, it's new physics. To recap: for the free motion:1. If P = F v, then magically v is known, which implies a preferred rest frame, and Einstein shrieks2. If P = F = constant, then free energy is available in profusion, and Noether shrieks.No new physics?No. 2 is not quite correct since all of the "free energy" schemes have circular terms in the Hamiltonian and only the acceleration to spacial seperation looks that way. Noether snoozes.
If Yang "nailed it" with "no new physics", which of Noether or Einstein did she decide to trash? Because you have to choose, and either way, it's new physics. To recap: for the free motion:1. If P = F v, then magically v is known, which implies a preferred rest frame, and Einstein shrieks2. If P = F = constant, then free energy is available in profusion, and Noether shrieks.No new physics?
Quote from: Rodal on 05/24/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 05/24/2015 04:49 pm...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 05:08 pm...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!! As PhaseShift said it is interesting how this video deals with a number of topics we have been discussing. For example, the question is asked (by somebody at CERN) to Sundrum as to whether there is a relation of the extra dimension(s) to the Quantum Vacuum virtual particles. The answer is that this is unknown. They are using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a given. Sundrum emphasizes the fact that we can borrow much larger amounts of energy than we own (no need of collateral) but that you have to pay it back in an extremely small amount of time. They are using this ability to borrow larger energy from the QV in their experiments to explore energy being lost in the extra dimension(s). Thus, the issue with Dr. White's proposal is the need to payback, in a very small amount of time, any energy you may borrow (the QV being immutable and non-degradable over longer periods of time). Essentially, Dr. White's proposal is that one can default on the mortgage Ahhh the Quantum Vacuum, the QV. If there wasn't so much evidence that it exists as appearing and disappearing particles and forces from somewhere out of the planck levels of space and possible links into another dimension of space time, I'd think QV is a Genie in the bottle. Reading about the QV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_stateWhat is that time period I need to "give it back"? a femtosecond, 1 week, a couple years, the forecast age of the universe? I'm not sure if it is a set time as we see it. And what if I warped, just a little and just enough spacetime with an EM field, would that have an effect of the borrowed time and during that time I had it couldn't I just strip of a little something extra before I gave it back?My head is feeling a little mushy and I think I need some hot tub time with something cold.To all, thanks for putting up with me and my crackpot ideas of our world.
Quote from: phaseshift on 05/24/2015 04:49 pm...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 05:08 pm...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!! As PhaseShift said it is interesting how this video deals with a number of topics we have been discussing. For example, the question is asked (by somebody at CERN) to Sundrum as to whether there is a relation of the extra dimension(s) to the Quantum Vacuum virtual particles. The answer is that this is unknown. They are using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a given. Sundrum emphasizes the fact that we can borrow much larger amounts of energy than we own (no need of collateral) but that you have to pay it back in an extremely small amount of time. They are using this ability to borrow larger energy from the QV in their experiments to explore energy being lost in the extra dimension(s). Thus, the issue with Dr. White's proposal is the need to payback, in a very small amount of time, any energy you may borrow (the QV being immutable and non-degradable over longer periods of time). Essentially, Dr. White's proposal is that one can default on the mortgage
...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.
...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!!
...NOTE: A structural Finite Element solution with a rigid body mode (free to translate in space) is singular, hence the matrix cannot be inverted. What boundary conditions did she choose? How did she get rid of rigid body modes to get a Stress Tensor solution? I also have to look at how she dealt with that (CoM)
My understanding so far of what he says is this;First, refers to "thrust" as the EM field moving backwards, and "reaction" as the frustum moving forwards, toward the small end. His idea of thrust is that when the photons are reflected from the small end, the frustum goes forward, the photons go backwards, and momentum is exchanged on the bounce. When they reach the back wall, the effect is the opposite and now "thrust" is forward and "reaction" is backwards, toward the big end. These two reactions do not add to zero. This is why it is not only confusing to read it, but to understand it. Thrust and reaction are both bi-directional, but their sum is not zero.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 05/24/2015 10:09 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 07:26 pmIf Yang "nailed it" with "no new physics", which of Noether or Einstein did she decide to trash? Because you have to choose, and either way, it's new physics. To recap: for the free motion:1. If P = F v, then magically v is known, which implies a preferred rest frame, and Einstein shrieks2. If P = F = constant, then free energy is available in profusion, and Noether shrieks.No new physics?No. 2 is not quite correct since all of the "free energy" schemes have circular terms in the Hamiltonian and only the acceleration to spacial seperation looks that way. Noether snoozes.Well, in that case I must ask you to go through my equations and to spot the error.
Quote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 10:56 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 05/24/2015 10:09 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 05/24/2015 07:26 pmIf Yang "nailed it" with "no new physics", which of Noether or Einstein did she decide to trash? Because you have to choose, and either way, it's new physics. To recap: for the free motion:1. If P = F v, then magically v is known, which implies a preferred rest frame, and Einstein shrieks2. If P = F = constant, then free energy is available in profusion, and Noether shrieks.No new physics?No. 2 is not quite correct since all of the "free energy" schemes have circular terms in the Hamiltonian and only the acceleration to spacial seperation looks that way. Noether snoozes.Well, in that case I must ask you to go through my equations and to spot the error.? ? ? http://emdrive.echothis.com/Theory ?
Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 07:15 pmQuote from: Rodal on 05/24/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 05/24/2015 04:49 pm...Great video. It touches on so many topics that get discussed here on this forum.Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 05:08 pm...I thoroughly enjoyed this, Thanks Dr. Rodal!!! As PhaseShift said it is interesting how this video deals with a number of topics we have been discussing. For example, the question is asked (by somebody at CERN) to Sundrum as to whether there is a relation of the extra dimension(s) to the Quantum Vacuum virtual particles. The answer is that this is unknown. They are using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a given. Sundrum emphasizes the fact that we can borrow much larger amounts of energy than we own (no need of collateral) but that you have to pay it back in an extremely small amount of time. They are using this ability to borrow larger energy from the QV in their experiments to explore energy being lost in the extra dimension(s). Thus, the issue with Dr. White's proposal is the need to payback, in a very small amount of time, any energy you may borrow (the QV being immutable and non-degradable over longer periods of time). Essentially, Dr. White's proposal is that one can default on the mortgage Ahhh the Quantum Vacuum, the QV. If there wasn't so much evidence that it exists as appearing and disappearing particles and forces from somewhere out of the planck levels of space and possible links into another dimension of space time, I'd think QV is a Genie in the bottle. Reading about the QV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_stateWhat is that time period I need to "give it back"? a femtosecond, 1 week, a couple years, the forecast age of the universe? I'm not sure if it is a set time as we see it. And what if I warped, just a little and just enough spacetime with an EM field, would that have an effect of the borrowed time and during that time I had it couldn't I just strip of a little something extra before I gave it back?My head is feeling a little mushy and I think I need some hot tub time with something cold.To all, thanks for putting up with me and my crackpot ideas of our world.I asked this question here because when I told my grandson who is in first year engineering asked me almost this very same question. I said virtual particles really don't exist except in calculations and mostly are not or can not be observed in the real world. He sent me this from Wikipedia and said not true. Could anyone help me here to put this into a easier form to understand? Thankshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle(...)
...aahhh... that would make sense...basically he's describing the radiation pressure on both front and back plate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#/media/File:Sail-Force1.gifdamn..you really have a gift of writing things out in a clear and layman-understandable way...but from a radiation pressure point of view, part of the big plate and the totality of the front plate nullify each other, so if there is a difference to be observed, shouldn't it be in the difference between the angled sides and the small left over of (big plate - small plate)?The fact that the sidewalls are angled give me the impression that electromagnetic waves will bounce more often on the sidewalls of the frustum when going towards the small end, then when going towards the big end.This is because reflection angles on the sidewalls are steeper when going to the small end, and more shallow going the other direction.Now... a silly idea/question... but is the size of a force/momentum truly linear with the angle of incidence? cause, if a force would be a bit less then linear for a shallow angle, that could account for the residual force towards the small end?Are there any studies about momentum/force transfer for electromagnetic waves when reflected?Probably talking nonsense here, but you never know, even a blind man can hit a target..
...I asked this question here because when I told my grandson who is in first year engineering asked me almost this very same question. I said virtual particles really don't exist except in calculations and mostly are not or can not be observed in the real world. He sent me this from Wikipedia and said not true. Could anyone help me here to put this into a easier form to understand? Thanks...
Quote from: SeeShells on 05/24/2015 11:01 pm...I asked this question here because when I told my grandson who is in first year engineering asked me almost this very same question. I said virtual particles really don't exist except in calculations and mostly are not or can not be observed in the real world. He sent me this from Wikipedia and said not true. Could anyone help me here to put this into a easier form to understand? Thanks...Well, I prefer the answer given in the previous video by Randall's co-author Raman Sundrum ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1379064#msg1379064 ), but here is a Prof. that agrees with the answer you gave to your grandson, for another point of view (in case you didn't see it):http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/24/2015 09:45 pm...She said; "(2) The calculation of the different modes and different cavity structure, the mode TM012 which has smallest cavity Large-End has the largest thrust, so has the highest quality factor and thrust. Mode TM011 thrusters has the worst performance."So a narrower cone angle, and a TM012 mode. What's wrong with that? The TM011 mode is not bad, but requires a larger cone, so of course it will be weaker. I actually think this is theoretically correct....The translation of Chinese to English seems to be low quality: the translation text states TM012 mode (as you wrote) but the original Chinese text reads TE012 instead (which is correct, as TM012 is at significantly higher frequency !!) The original Table 1 in Chinese shows larger geometrical dimensions for mode TE012 than the geometrical dimensions used for TM011.So, no the geometrical dimensions for mode TE012 and TM011 are such that the dimensions for TE012 were larger than for TM011.Please take a gander and let me know what you think:
...She said; "(2) The calculation of the different modes and different cavity structure, the mode TM012 which has smallest cavity Large-End has the largest thrust, so has the highest quality factor and thrust. Mode TM011 thrusters has the worst performance."So a narrower cone angle, and a TM012 mode. What's wrong with that? The TM011 mode is not bad, but requires a larger cone, so of course it will be weaker. I actually think this is theoretically correct....
..Looking at her chart, Figure 3, the TM012 mode should be a good one too, but I'll take your word for it. The horizontal axis of Figure 3 is (D/L)^2, so a larger number indicates larger diameter, shorter length. It defines the aspect ratio of the two, not the physical dimensions. No? What am I missing?
(2) For the calculation of the different modes and different microwave cavity structures, for the mode TE012 the cavity which has the minimum diameter at the large end has the largest thrust and the highest quality factor. Mode TM011 thrusters has the worst performance. (3) As the Large-End diameter of the cavity increases, the height of cavity is reduced, cavity volume and wall surface area also reduced, leading to low quality factor and producing less thrust
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
Quote from: WarpTech on 05/25/2015 01:26 am...Looking at her chart, Figure 3, the TM012 mode should be a good one too, but I'll take your word for it. The horizontal axis of Figure 3 is (D/L)^2, so a larger number indicates larger diameter, shorter length. It defines the aspect ratio of the two, not the physical dimensions. No? What am I missing?But the vertical axis in Figure 3 does not appear to be thrust force, so how do you know that TM012 should be a good one?And, when the time comes for her to calculate the thrust force (Table 2) she does not consider TM012
...Looking at her chart, Figure 3, the TM012 mode should be a good one too, but I'll take your word for it. The horizontal axis of Figure 3 is (D/L)^2, so a larger number indicates larger diameter, shorter length. It defines the aspect ratio of the two, not the physical dimensions. No? What am I missing?
Quote from: Rodal on 05/25/2015 02:02 amQuote from: WarpTech on 05/25/2015 01:26 am...Looking at her chart, Figure 3, the TM012 mode should be a good one too, but I'll take your word for it. The horizontal axis of Figure 3 is (D/L)^2, so a larger number indicates larger diameter, shorter length. It defines the aspect ratio of the two, not the physical dimensions. No? What am I missing?But the vertical axis in Figure 3 does not appear to be thrust force, so how do you know that TM012 should be a good one?And, when the time comes for her to calculate the thrust force (Table 2) she does not consider TM012Okay, so my take on the vertical axis was that it represented Q somehow, but I admit it is unclear to me what that vertical axis represents. If it does represent Q, it shows that the TE012 mode cavity requires a longer length and smaller big diameter than the TM01 mode, for the same Q value. I'm assuming that is the case for the TM012 mode as well, showing it requires longer length and smaller big diameter than TM011 or TE111.What's your take on it?