Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 794780 times)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2280 on: 10/19/2014 03:56 PM »
Ah memories.....we were so close too. White and March would have been proud. Simultaneous breaking of P and T discrete t symmetries........been trying to warp spacetime ever since.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269074#msg1269074

Edited for spelling
« Last Edit: 10/20/2014 05:24 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2281 on: 10/19/2014 04:10 PM »
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

Still 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 thought 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 (with and without dielectric)?

Ignoring all other data that shows (whether an experimental artifact, or rotational thrust, or linear thrust) the response to be Q and resonance related?

Ignoring the information from wembley that Shawyer no longer uses any dielectric?

And what makes you hope that small disks of Polyethylene (the same plastic used to make garbage bags) can produce thrust in a cupric hollow box?
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 04:26 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2282 on: 10/19/2014 04:17 PM »
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

Still 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.......You realize an oblong spacetime will break P & T right? All the discreet symmetries are broken singularly anyway. This isn't magic.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 04:21 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2283 on: 10/19/2014 04:21 PM »
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

Still 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, and written when they started the report and were learning their way around- 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)
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 04:24 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2284 on: 10/19/2014 04:24 PM »
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

Still 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)

Yeah pretty much. Teflon and PE are both dielectrics. And Wembley is a reporter or had access to a reporter or something, I don't remember, but what he said could be bad info. Now those Nasa fellers said the dielectric was important, so I'm not gonna discount what they reported. Gotta make the theory fit the experiment. Not to mention you can get measured thrust for artifact effects too, without dielectric.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 04:54 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline SteveKelsey

Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2285 on: 10/19/2014 04:38 PM »
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
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 04:54 PM by SteveKelsey »
2001 is running a little late, but we are getting there.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2286 on: 10/19/2014 04:43 PM »
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.
aero

P.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

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2287 on: 10/19/2014 05:01 PM »
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.
aero

P.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

1) There is also Fig. 17

2) This is something where JohnFornaro and AutoCAD could really help

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2288 on: 10/19/2014 05:12 PM »
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

Although the question is probably directed to frobnicat, here is an attempt at answering it:

1) As to Prof. McCulloch's theory, his contact info in the UK: 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 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?
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 06:01 PM by Rodal »

Offline SteveKelsey

Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2289 on: 10/19/2014 05:50 PM »


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

Thank you Dr Rodal, I am grateful for the link.


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.


Agreed. John von Neumann is a personal hero of mine. However, the analysis has to be correctly framed or the math, even where immaculate, will deliver a false result. Goatguy would derive a more satisfactory answer if he characterised Woodwards thruster as part of an open system. He prefers not to and get an over unity result, as would a transistor if you ignored the power supply.


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.

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 : )


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?

Agreed, and thank you for your contributions to this fascinating thread.

2001 is running a little late, but we are getting there.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2290 on: 10/19/2014 05:50 PM »
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

We really started ripping into inertia back around page 80. Oh what a journey that was....I probably got started in on my brain tumor from that. Eventually we arrived at MiHsC as the most informed (modern) and most likely correct theory of inertia. We looked at A LOT of different theories of inertia. Go back to where we were trying to categorize inertia theories by intrinsic/extrinsic.

On the topic of math. I prefer to start with the universe I can see and then try to explain it with math, not the other way around.......experiment and reality trumps math.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 05:58 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2291 on: 10/19/2014 06:00 PM »
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?
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2292 on: 10/19/2014 06:09 PM »
Quote
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.

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 : )

...
We know that the electric field inside the cavity is confined to the cavity as in a Faraday cage.  Any slowly varying component to the magnetic field can escape the cavity.  Gravity acts inside the cavity just as it does outside the cavity, the cavity walls do not provide any shielding against gravity but it is not clear why gravity should play a role on the behavior of the microwave photons inside the cavity.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2293 on: 10/19/2014 06:32 PM »
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?

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/c

That 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.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2294 on: 10/19/2014 06:51 PM »
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?
the thrust of a photon rocket is

F= N * (photon momentum) =  N * h * f / c

where

N = number of photons per unit time
h = Plank constant
f = photon frequency
c = speed of light

Although somebody in this thread keeps writing that photons do not have mass, in the relativistic sense, and in the sense that engineers and scientists use Quantum Mechanics to make everyday calculations, one can use relativistic mass and energy equivalence to calculate the mass flow rate.  E = m * c ^2, therefore  m = E/ (c^2)



photon speed = c

photon energy = h *  f

photon mass =  h *  f / c^2

photon momentum = h *  f / c



mass flow rate:

mdot = N * h * f / c^2

Therefore

(with

g = standard acceleration of gravity = 9.80665 m/ s^2

c= speed of light in vacuum = 299 792 458 m / s
)

Isp = F /( g* mdot )= c / g = 3.06 * 10^7 s

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

where

total photon power = N * (photon energy) =  N * h * f


« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 10:13 PM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2295 on: 10/19/2014 07:10 PM »
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?

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/c

That 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.

Ok, thanks. That gives nano-N/watt = 1e9/c =~3.334 nano-N/watt
So if the Coefficient Of Performance, COP is (thrust/watt)/ideal rocket thrust/watt we have

Experiment                  COP
  "Shawyer (2008) a"        5643.2
  "Shawyer (2008) b"        64155.6
    "Juan (2012) TE011 a"   64155.6
    "Juan (2012) TE012 b"   94434.6
    "Brady et al. (2014) a"   1617.8
    "Brady et al. (2014) b"   899.4
  "Brady et al. (2014) c"   6387.9

It is interesting that Shawyer b" and Jaun a" are exactly the same. (Because the thrust in the data table is the same, as is power.) Maybe that data entry should be double checked.

And that does make Brady b" stand out as an outlier.

« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 07:15 PM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2296 on: 10/19/2014 07:33 PM »
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

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2297 on: 10/19/2014 07:46 PM »

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

If 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.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 07:47 PM by frobnicat »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2298 on: 10/19/2014 08:00 PM »

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

If 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.
Yes you may.  I fix't, it reads now "Thrust per total photon power."  Thks from me.
My friend JohnFornaro will provide you with a financial reward for catching this wording error. You have to choose door #1, door #2, or door #3.  There is a goat behind one of the doors, nothing behind another one and a financial reward behind another one.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 08:06 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Liked: 779
  • Likes Given: 1030
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #2299 on: 10/19/2014 08:15 PM »
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
Well that certainly is physics from the edge. Godspeed.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 08:17 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: