Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/19/2014 03:56 PMAh memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?

Quote from: Rodal on 10/19/2014 04:10 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 10/19/2014 03:56 PMAh memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?Well the theory has to fit the experiment. They clearly said the dielectric was important. It isn't magic. Someone has to figure it out.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/19/2014 04:17 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/19/2014 04:10 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 10/19/2014 03:56 PMAh memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discreet symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074Still looking for magic dielectric to produce thrust based on earliest tests at Eagleworks (before they learned how to control the bandwidth) with unreported Q, with unreported numerical results, conducted at a much higher frequency (way off scale to the right to their S12 plots and their COMSOL Finite Element results ?).A magic dielectric material not identified in the text of the Eagleworks report, was thouhgt initially to be Teflon (PTFE) then it was suggested to be ceramic, and now thanks to notsosureofit we know to be PE based on the small print of a figure ?Hanging your hopes on PE (polyethylene) providing thrust somehow, based on a test when Eagleworks did not even have COMSOL Finite Element predictions at what frequencies to expect resonance?Wouldn't it make more sense to base such hopes on at least a S12 plot?Ignoring all other data that shows the response to Q and resonance related?Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?And what makes you hope that Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust?Well the theory has to fit the experiment. They clearly said the dielectric was important. It isn't magic. Someone has to figure it out.So, rather than examine the experimental numerical data of all the tests in the USA, UK and China, the emphasis should be on a statement on a several-pages long report?And that little statement -all words, no numerical data- should be interpreted as telling us that Polyethylene (the plastic used for garbage bags) being the key to the Magic Kingdom?(But for the Cannae device it is Teflon, and for Shawyer now -according to wembley - is nothing -no dielectric)

HI all,I 've been revisiting my estimate for the dimensions of the Brady cavity and have been having second thoughts. Would a few of you take a look at the photograph and make an estimate of the dimensions. There isn't much to use as a scale but maybe you can find something. I used the cross section of the support and called it 1.5 inches but parallax interferes. I read from the report that the chamber is 36 x 30 inches, and an outside photo of it shows it to be 36 inches long and 30 inches wide. That is, longer than it is wide. Maybe that information could make a better scaling. Anyway, we need more eyes on this than just mine.aeroP.S. Are there any photos of the device other than Figure 7 and Figure 15 of the report?https://www.scribd.com/doc/235868930/Anomalous-Thrust-Production-from-an-RF-Test-Device-Measured-on-a-Low-Thrust-Torsion-Pendulum

Please forgive an idle speculation on a Sunday evening from the peanut gallery.Whilst I have been enjoying the impressive display of skill by the math samurai I have a question I have not seen sliced and diced yet. If the local model of inertia is preferred, could those that propose it please explain to this ignoramus how the gravinertial effects of the universe is switched off? I am not aware of any distance limit proposed by GR or quantum mechanics. Sure for any field the inverse square law seems to apply, but there is no limit beyond which the effect is zero. c limits the timing of a reaction to an action, but it does not eliminate the reaction. Genuine question, because the local inertia model has to explain how the cosmos is switched off if it is to be taken seriously.Edited to correct typo

1) As to Prof. McCulloch's theory I propose that you direct the question to him directly. You can find his contact info in the UK here: https://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382

2) As stated by John von Neumann, the business of science is to make mathematical models. These mathematical models are expected to predict physical effects. The mathematical theory rises and falls based on its success or failure to make those mathematical predictions. The emphasis should be on mathematical description of the experiments first, and predictions as the next step.

3) What is inside the cupric hollow EM Drive cavities when they operate ? The answer is clear: photons at microwave frequencies. Photons are both particle and wave and describable by Quantum Mechanics. They are not Classical Mechanics particles. Still conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and other principles apply to this EM Drive. It is not clear at all that gravity should pertain to this physical effect. To this date we use Quantum Mechanics as the most successful theory ever in mathematically predicting nature, yet, its interpretation is still as fraught with difficulties as it was 100 years ago. Engineers and Scientists calculate and are very happy with the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics, without worrying about issues that philosophers worry about like "Many Worlds Interpretations" etc etc.

The questions are:A) are the measured thrust forces an experimental artifact or a genuine thrust force?B) if the measured thrust force is not an experimental artifact, is it just causing a rotation of the drive around its center of mass or is it producing a linear acceleration of the center of mass?

Quote3) What is inside the cupric hollow EM Drive cavities when they operate ? The answer is clear: photons at microwave frequencies. Photons are both particle and wave and describable by Quantum Mechanics. They are not Classical Mechanics particles. Still conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and other principles apply to this EM Drive. It is not clear at all that gravity should pertain to this physical effect. To this date we use Quantum Mechanics as the most successful theory ever in mathematically predicting nature, yet, its interpretation is still as fraught with difficulties as it was 100 years ago. Engineers and Scientists calculate and are very happy with the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics, without worrying about issues that philosophers worry about like "Many Worlds Interpretations" etc etc.Are you proposing that the inside of the device is isolated from the universe? If so how. Please don't bother to answer if you find the question trivial, I won't be offended and I do not want to distract you. Silence is a powerful message : )...

I am confused.What is the thrust per watt of photon energy for an ideal photon rocket?Is it energy mass of all the photons times c?

Quote from: aero on 10/19/2014 06:00 PMI am confused.What is the thrust per watt of photon energy for an ideal photon rocket?Is it energy mass of all the photons times c?For a photon rocket thrust(Newtons)/power(Watts) is 1/c. That is a best case for a perfectly collimated beam : diffraction limit can slightly lower that upper bound (that is if the size of emitter is not many times greater than wavelength), and practical aspects obviously can only limit more this theoretical bound, limited efficiency in energy to photon conversion for instance.Since thrust (force) is kg m/s impulses per second and Watts is Joules per second, the same ratio is correct as per momentum(kg m/s)/energy(Joules) = 1/cThat is exactly the definition of momentum for a photon : p = E/c. This is from there that thrust/power=1/c is derived. Note that frequency (and reciprocally wavelength) don't play any role in that. Beaming perfectly collimated photons with perfect efficiency gives same thrust for a given power, whether this power is used to generate a lot of low momentum microwave photons per second, or a few gamma rays photons of high momentum per second.

Specific Thrust = Thrust per total photon energy = F /( N * h * f)= 1 / c = 3.336 * 10 ^ (-9) s/m

Quote from: Rodal on 10/19/2014 06:51 PMSpecific Thrust = Thrust per total photon energy = F /( N * h * f)= 1 / c = 3.336 * 10 ^ (-9) s/mIf I may : this mixing of energy and power is confusing. <<N is the photon number flux (photon number per unit time)>> and F is the "momentum flux" number of momenta (of a photon) per second. Formula is correct but describing the power (energy flux) as "total energy" is misleading.

Attention to new blog page by Prof. McCulloch with a revised chart based on wavelengths and analogies to the reason for a force on the EM Drive:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/emdrive-mihsc-dream-of-horizon-physics.html