Quote from: Mulletron on 10/02/2014 08:03 PMSciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.He knew it was expanding. Isn't that what a "Robertson-Walker" metric means? Y'know, more or less...QuoteThis isn't relevant anymore.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3096v2.pdf

Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.

This isn't relevant anymore.

Quote from: 93143 on 10/02/2014 08:36 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 10/02/2014 08:03 PMSciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating.He knew it was expanding. Isn't that what a "Robertson-Walker" metric means? Y'know, more or less...QuoteThis isn't relevant anymore.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3096v2.pdfThanks for sending the link. I gotta say though, in the conclusion, it basically says that Mach's principle wasn't viable until dark matter and energy came on scene. Edit: Additional thought. If dark energy/matter haven't been detected, this paper essentially poo poos Mach's principle. Does this sound like a logical flow?

If dark energy/matter haven't been detected, this paper essentially poo poos Mach's principle.

Quote from: 93143 on 10/02/2014 08:36 PMQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/02/2014 08:30 PMnegative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward actionIsn't that only true for the negative mass? Positive mass would still be repelled by it.And therefore would act as a gravity shield against our planet's (positive mass) attraction, which was the whole point of Sciama's 1954 paper.

Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/02/2014 08:30 PMnegative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward actionIsn't that only true for the negative mass? Positive mass would still be repelled by it.

negative inertial action reverses this otherwise backward action

Woodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass during deformation, since deformation changes the energy in these bonds and energy = mass X c^2.

Quote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 11:48 PMQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 11:06 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 05:44 PMQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 PMI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007. Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.This is my understanding:Cannae drive: E field data is provided. No Q factor provided.Tapered Cavity: E field numerical data range not provided. Q factor provided.________________These are my calculations for the Maximum power density in ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator for Cannae device (notice the frequency "f" in the calculation):MaximumPower = 2 Pi f (E^2) (permittivity of free space) (epsilon')Taking the maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m , and the given frequency of 935 MHz, it follows (for the Teflon PTFE dielectric resonator) that:MaximumPower per unit volume [W/m^3] = 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) (( 4.7189*10^4)^2) (8.85418782*10^(-12)) (2.1)MaximumPower per unit volume (in the dielectric resonator)~ 243 W/cm^3If you divide your <<E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre>>by the square root of the angular frequency for the Cannae drive: Sqrt[ 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) ] = 76647.1one gets:E field range from 1049 to 2411 Volts per meter.which is not too far from the COMSOL calculations (there is also an uncertainty due to the Volume)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~While for the tapered cavity If you divide your <<E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre>> by the actual square root of the angular frequency Sqrt[ 2 Pi (1932.6*10^6 1/s) ] = 110195one getsE field range from 730 to 1677 Volts per meter (there is also an uncertainty due to the Volume)

Quote from: aero on 10/01/2014 11:06 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 05:44 PMQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 PMI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007. Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.This is my understanding:Cannae drive: E field data is provided. No Q factor provided.Tapered Cavity: E field numerical data range not provided. Q factor provided.________________These are my calculations for the Maximum power density in ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator for Cannae device (notice the frequency "f" in the calculation):MaximumPower = 2 Pi f (E^2) (permittivity of free space) (epsilon')Taking the maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m , and the given frequency of 935 MHz, it follows (for the Teflon PTFE dielectric resonator) that:MaximumPower per unit volume [W/m^3] = 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) (( 4.7189*10^4)^2) (8.85418782*10^(-12)) (2.1)MaximumPower per unit volume (in the dielectric resonator)~ 243 W/cm^3

Quote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 05:44 PMQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 PMI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007. Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.

Quote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 PMI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...

I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.

Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/02/2014 07:09 PMWoodward has never suggested we can alter the rest mass of particles, but rather only of bulk mass items that store Mach Effects or mass fluctuations in the interatomic energy bonds. In fact, all bulk matter stores delta mass during deformation, since deformation changes the energy in these bonds and energy = mass X c^2.Interesting, did not know that. Thanks.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1953MNRAS.113...34S&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_LOW&send=GET&filetype=.pdfSciama's 1953 paper above.I gotta say IMHO of course, I am completely anti Machian and derivatives such as Sciama's take on inertia. Let me explain:Mach's ideas come from a time where he didn't enjoy the benefit of anything QM. He didn't even believe that atoms exist I read somewhere.Sciama mentions in his introduction accelerations in reference to the fixed stars. His ideas didn't enjoy the benefit of knowing the universe is expanding and accelerating. For the life of me, I cringe when I read things such as local matter interacting with the distant matter of the universe, that kind of stuff. This isn't relevant anymore. How can we get instantaneous thrust if the action depends on a gravinertial field propagating at C. What makes more sense to me are the various theories which explain the origin of inertia as quantum phenomena. Quantum effects are local, here, and now. http://calphysics.org/index.htmlhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+McCulloch_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (similar to above but further modifies inertia when in an environment with very low accelerations)This emdrive thing has taken up a lot of my time lately, not so much as if or why it works. I have discovered that the jury is out on so many fundamental scientific concepts which I thought were nailed down, like inertia, origin or mass (not simply/only Higgs) and dark matter/energy. The dark energy/matter thing really bugs me. They were clearly invented to explain away inadequacies in theory attempting to explain observation. Instead of revising theory, more "crap" was piled on to fix it. Kinda like the games renormalization plays; card tricks. I think the current state of science is in bad shape in that theory has trumped observation. I get that it is important to spend time/money looking for new particles/gravity waves, etc. But I see little effort from mainstream science to go back and question itself when nothing new is found. One can ride a bunk theory for years and build a career of it. Then we end up with unfalsifiable theories like string theory or more particles like superpartners. Gravinertial fields are yet another invention to address something happening here and now that isn't explained by current accepted theory. Thus I am excited when I read things like "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device" because if it really is true, it will really shake up the old tired paradigm I briefly ranted about above. It would do science a service if we would "play with what we got", instead of creating new theories to play with. GR hasn't let us down yet, but it is macro. There is a gap between macro and micro which could be filled in by modifying GR on its boundaries where appropriate, instead of treating it as complete. Einstein doesn't have an ego anymore. I admire Hawking for continually adjusting to the times.

Pardon me for quoting a volume of information but I think we can now discuss the real point of all this. That is, Rodal can since he has the math, I think.As we know, the energy needed to create electron/positron pairs is 2*0.511 MeV which equals 1.6374 wattseconds. We now have some idea of the energy contained within the cavity and it is way more than enough to create e/p pairs. But is that energy properly oriented and concentrated enough for pair production? I found that the pair generally moves in the direction of the photon that created it (Wikipedia) but I don't know that any single photon contains sufficient energy, or how to calculate individual photon energy within the cavity.Of course if pairs can be produced then we need to look very hard at Dr. White's theory for the thrust production.I did look at the intensity of the RF wave in the dielectric of the Cannae device from the COMSOL figure. Intensity=Power-watts/area (m^2), so area = power/average intensity = 28 Watts/RF power.I calculate the area = 9.474 square millimeter, so the power is quite concentrated.

However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it

Quote from: Rodal on 10/03/2014 12:16 AMHowever, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey itI think you're conflating two things: Woodward's theory (which describes what happens when certain things occur in a material) and the properties of the material (which describe how easily and/or efficiently those things can be forced to occur in it).Woodward's theory itself has no efficiency terms. Those terms result from an attempt to map experimentally imposed parameters onto the quantities appearing in his equations. Since the electromechanical response of the material is what performs this mapping in real life, the efficiency terms represent the constitutive relations, which are not the Mach effect but mediate between the Mach effect and the attempt to force it to happen.Assuming Woodward's theory is accepted for the sake of argument, saying a real-life material doesn't obey it is like saying a real-life material doesn't obey the law of gravity. A feather may not fall as fast as a brick, but there are other reasons for that.

http://calphysics.org/index.html

"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers."

I thought I explained what I was talking about pretty well...

Quote from: 93143 on 10/03/2014 01:15 AMI thought I explained what I was talking about pretty well...Well, you edited what you wrote since I answered it. Concerning << Most real-life collisions don't appear to obey conservation of energy, until you account for dissipation of that energy in forms other than the bulk kinetic energy of the colliding objects.Combining these two examples, bouncing a ball off the pavement and having it not quite come back up to the height it was dropped from does not mean the ball fails to obey either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy>>Agreed that they do not fail to obey the law of gravity or conservation of energy. What they fail to obey is the (Cauchy-Hooke) law of perfect elasticity. What is normally called the impact "coefficient of restitution" is a constitutive law, it is usually due to plastic, viscoelastic or viscoplastic energy dissipation, which are all due to constitutive relations in which the body is not perfectly elastic. I have edited my previous original post that motivated your comment to now read "W theory" for Woodward's theory plus any constitutive statement (macroscopic or microscopic in nature) attached to it.

not to mention supersymmetry and string theory.

What does the UVA acronym stand for?

...this disappointed you for what reason? because he didn't have the time?

Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.