Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2103496 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Sounds to me kind of like:

 "Surface integral (numeric) of this expression:.....This is the integral of the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the  truncated cone surface at that point"

  The vector normal to the  truncated cone surface does not change for different modes.

That's what it sounds like anyway.................

So what is missing here to get a force is coupling: for example coupling to the Quantum Vacuum in a MagnetoHydroDynamics model, as per H. White.  Coupling to an external field (and non-zero differentiation with respect to time of the energy density shown) are necessary to get a force. 

Well,  one probable answer will be: it is all in the dielectric PE for it to produce such force ;

non-harmonic change of the electromagnetic density with respect to time ? (so that the time derivative does not have a period over which it averages zero value?)

Will they claim a nonlinear non-harmonic non-periodic response in the dielectric coupling with the Quantum Vacuum such that the time derivative of the energy density does not have a zero time average?

The image below (described this time as a volumetric force integral)  looks nonlinear or non-harmonic non-periodic:

« Last Edit: 03/21/2015 09:29 PM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Sounds to me kind of like:

 "Surface integral (numeric) of this expression:.....This is the integral of the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the  truncated cone surface at that point"

  The vector normal to the  truncated cone surface does not change for different modes.

That's what it sounds like anyway.................

If "sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" (a scalar) is replaced by "pressure" (as scalar pressure in ideal gas at thermal equilibrium) then the formula would read as the surface integral of the pressure multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the  truncated cone surface at that point. Pressure is N/mē scalar, integrated over a surface yields N. The normal_z factor (dimensionless) leaves only the z component of the force at each point.  Over a patch of surface the integral result would be the z component of the force exerted by such gas on that patch. For the inner surface of a closed cavity filled by a gas at thermal equilibrium and at rest (and without pressure gradient due to gravity or acceleration), that should integrate to 0.

If this analogy holds, the units of "the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" should be like a pressure, or equivalently energy volumetric density, in N/mē or equivalently J/m^3 (passing by Nm/m^3 and Nm is J).

Maybe this is more clear to understand "volumetric energy densities (in J/m^3) taken at the surface" rather than "surface energy densities" as the later seems to imply surface densities (in J/mē).

1) Integrating J/m^3 over a surface gives N (mē*J/m^3 -> J/m -> Nm/m -> N)
2) Integrating J/m^2 over a surface gives J, equivalent to Nm, not to N

Only 1) makes the formula dimensionally consistent (to give N in the end)

My musings, can't go much further, why I asked dr Rodal his views on the matter. Latest posts are quite readable even when lacking any decent basis with electromagnetic stress-energy tensors.

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Doctor McCulloch put forth another blog post on the EM Drive, using a 'one wave' version of his theory.  By and large, his predictions with this new model seem much closer to the mark than before.  There are a few tests he put in red because of uncertainty over the geometry.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

At times, it seems almost like this device operates in the murky area between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Sounds to me kind of like:

 "Surface integral (numeric) of this expression:.....This is the integral of the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the  truncated cone surface at that point"

  The vector normal to the  truncated cone surface does not change for different modes.

That's what it sounds like anyway.................

If "sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" (a scalar) is replaced by "pressure" (as scalar pressure in ideal gas at thermal equilibrium) then the formula would read as the surface integral of the pressure multiplied by the z component of the vector normal to the  truncated cone surface at that point. Pressure is N/mē scalar, integrated over a surface yields N. The normal_z factor (dimensionless) leaves only the z component of the force at each point.  Over a patch of surface the integral result would be the z component of the force exerted by such gas on that patch. For the inner surface of a closed cavity filled by a gas at thermal equilibrium and at rest (and without pressure gradient due to gravity or acceleration), that should integrate to 0.

If this analogy holds, the units of "the sum of the magnetic and electric field surface energy densities" should be like a pressure, or equivalently energy volumetric density, in N/mē or equivalently J/m^3 (passing by Nm/m^3 and Nm is J).

Maybe this is more clear to understand "volumetric energy densities (in J/m^3) taken at the surface" rather than "surface energy densities" as the later seems to imply surface densities (in J/mē).

1) Integrating J/m^3 over a surface gives N (mē*J/m^3 -> J/m -> Nm/m -> N)
2) Integrating J/m^2 over a surface gives J, equivalent to Nm, not to N

Only 1) makes the formula dimensionally consistent (to give N in the end)

My musings, can't go much further, why I asked dr Rodal his views on the matter. Latest posts are quite readable even when lacking any decent basis with electromagnetic stress-energy tensors.
I agree, you are correct that it has the units of a force.
But the electromagnetic force should be the divergence of the expression used by NASA Eagleworks in that image (including other terms that may be zero because div B = 0 and div E = 0 and the time rate of Poyinting's vector is zero for harmonic electromagnetic standing waves), and they did not take the divergence, which at first glance does not appear correct: they would not be calculating the correct force: since if one does not take the divergence of the expression, one is not satisfying conservation of energy/momentum


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#Conservation_laws



Unless they assume some non-conventional time-dependence for the electromagnetic waves such that the time derivative equals the original function.  Essentially that would imply a time-dependence going like e^t (the derivative with respect to time of e^t equals e^t) instead of harmonic dependence e^(i*omega*t).

e^t dependence would not be a standing harmonic wave, but it would be a disturbance growing exponentially with time !

or for time dependence of e^(-a*t) it would be exponentially time-decaying, and in that case if they don't take the divergence they would be off by sign and by the factor a.

These alternatives don't appear to make sense...
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 12:21 AM by Rodal »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Doctor McCulloch put forth another blog post on the EM Drive, using a 'one wave' version of his theory.  By and large, his predictions with this new model seem much closer to the mark than before.  There are a few tests he put in red because of uncertainty over the geometry.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

At times, it seems almost like this device operates in the murky area between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.

The GRT coupling between EM and Gravity is miniscule; something like billionths of a trilionth or some ridiculously small amount like that. (source: popular articles on Martin Tajmar's retracted gravity effects paper.)

Are these present effects in that slender range or are they outliers to what GRT allows? If it is it's not necessarily invalidating because GRT does not describe dark sector interactions for example. But it's worth exploring how they vary from predictions.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 12:25 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 764
Doctor McCulloch put forth another blog post on the EM Drive, using a 'one wave' version of his theory.  By and large, his predictions with this new model seem much closer to the mark than before.  There are a few tests he put in red because of uncertainty over the geometry.

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

At times, it seems almost like this device operates in the murky area between gravity and electromagnetic radiation.

The GRT coupling between EM and Gravity is miniscule; something like billionths of a trilionth or some ridiculously small amount like that. (source: popular articles on Martin Tajmar's retracted gravity effects paper.)

Are these present effects in that slender range or are they outliers to what GRT allows? If it is it's not necessarily invalidating because GRT does not describe dark sector interactions for example. But it's worth exploring how they vary from predictions.

Is it too much to hope for a strong divergence from predictions?  ;D

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/03/lhcbs-new-analysis-confirms-old-puzzle

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 237
Quote
Unless they assume some non-conventional time-dependence for the electromagnetic waves such that the time derivative equals the original function.  Essentially that would imply a time-dependence going like e^t (the derivative with respect to time of e^t equals e^t) instead of harmonic dependence e^(i*omega*t).

e^t dependence would not be a standing harmonic wave, but it would be a disturbance growing exponentially with time !

Isn't that exactly the assumption for superluminal evanescent waves and for matter waves tunnelling through a barrier? Yes, I think it is.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80




Is it too much to hope for a strong divergence from predictions?  ;D

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/03/lhcbs-new-analysis-confirms-old-puzzle

No. No.... It's not. I certainly hope something turns our understanding of gravity on it's head. That's why I'm always spamming links to any article that seems to point in that direction; like the nexus graviton thing.  :)
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 03:12 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Folks:

While you think about possible explanations for the gathering body of data that surrounds the EM-Drive, I've been given permission by Dr. John Brandenburg to post his latest conjecture on how he thinks the EM-Drive AKA Q-Thruster can generate a thrust signal that does not violate the conservations laws.  It's not too far off what Dr. White is proposing, but it's just different enough to be of interest especially to the GRT crowd.

Best, Paul M.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Folks:

While you think about possible explanations for the gathering body of data that surrounds the EM-Drive, I've been given permission by Dr. John Brandenburg to post his latest conjecture on how he thinks the EM-Drive AKA Q-Thruster can generate a thrust signal that does not violate the conservations laws.  It's not too far off what Dr. White is proposing, but it's just different enough to be of interest especially to the GRT crowd.

Best, Paul M.

Fascinating. This looks like it could actually tie into the article I posted earlier.

EDIT:  This one right here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150306091617.htm

Especially:

Quote
Moreover the Nexus graviton can also be considered as a globule of vacuum energy which can merge and de-merge with others in a process that resembles cytokineses in cell biology.

The Nexus graviton is Dark Matter and constitutes space-time. The emission of a graviton of least energy by a high energy graviton results in the expansion of the high energy graviton as it assumes a lower energy state. This process manifests as Dark Energy and takes place throughout space-time as the theory explains.

EDIT 2:  Random thoughts on the GEMS pdf: what would be the effects on the gravitational curves if these things were stacked in a linear fashion with the same orientation? Or placed like end to like end? Or nested coaxially? If the GEMS theory can make predictions for this it could be tested. Not to mention it might be additive or even multiplicative of the "thrust" signal. (A gravity effect would not really be thrust would it? I would describe it as analogous to thrust.)

EDIT 3: Even if the thrust is not a result of some GEMS thing what's to stop the team from stacking these things in an effort to break the GRC sensitivity threshold?

EDIT 4:  @Star-Drive: up-thread the participants were trying to get your attention on the reverse thrust condition.

EDIT 5:  If the effect is gravity related would the gravity gradient extend out of the frustrum? Could it be measured somewhat distant from the physical device? Change orientation to up and down and measure for weight differences of independent objects in proximity to the device?

EDIT 6:  Well if it is a QVPT then this  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140722091425.htm may be helpful.

because this sure sounds a lot like the frustrum: 
Quote
Ephraim Shahmoon, Gershon Kurizki (Weizmann Institute of Science) and Igor Mazets calculated what happens to vacuum forces between atoms when they are placed in the vicinity of an electrical transmission line such as a coaxial cable or a coplanar waveguide (a device used in cavity quantum electrodynamics experiments as an open transmission line), cooled to very low temperatures. "In that case, the fluctuations are effectively confined to one dimension," says Igor Mazets. The virtual particles will be forced to go into the direction of the other atom.

In that case, the fluctuation-mediated attraction between the atoms becomes orders of magnitude stronger than in free space. Usually, the force decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the atoms. Due to the transmission line, it falls off with one over the distance cubed, instead of one over the seventh power of the distance, as in the usual case.

« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 07:34 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Attached are VSWR plots for the unloaded frustum configuration currently in my possession between 2400-2500mhz. The cursors are at the MIN VSWR. The peaks of each plot is a VSWR of 99.

Fully calibrated test equipment used for test is as follows:
HP Agilent 8757E SNA
HP 83752B Sweep generator @+10dbm
HP 85027C Directional Bridge
Gigatronics 8542C power meter w/80301A sensor

50 ohm termination
50 ohm short (for cal)
2 high quality 6' test cables 1.2db loss @2450mhz. (open and shorted during cal)

The rest of the data is here:
(where I marked max VSWR and frequency ranges where VSWR is less than 1.5)
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoNG5DdWdZb3BLazg&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM

700-2700mhz VSWR plot is here:
(disclaimer, my E field probe is not optimized for all these frequencies, still useful to see what other frequencies couple to the cavity with low VSWR using my 31mm probe/cavity combination)
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoX0RKcU5BRnphYm8&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM

Why you want to properly terminate the sample port on your frustum:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoWXFTeFhEbXVsUG8&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM

Tonight, I'll post an amplitude response test, and numerous spectrum analyzer screenshots with more data.

Later, after I get the dielectric discs properly milled down to precisely 6.25", I'll do the same tests for a loaded frustum. If I can still resonate at my desired frequency range in that configuration, then it will be time to balance and fly some copper kettles  :)

Edit: Added another test cable. The test used 2 cables.


« Last Edit: 03/23/2015 06:38 AM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
@ Star-Drive

"EDIT 4:  @Star-Drive: up-thread the participants were trying to get your attention on the reverse thrust condition."

-from Stormbringer

Thanks
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 12:22 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Attached are VSWR plots for the unloaded frustum configuration currently in my possession between 2400-2500mhz. The cursors are at the MIN VSWR. The peaks of each plot is a VSWR of 99.

...
Would like to perform some calculations of Poynting vector, etc.

What are the geometrical dimensions of your truncated cone?

Internal Diameter of Big Base = ?
Internal Diameter of Small Base = ?
Internal Axial Length (perpendicular to the bases) = ?

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
@Paul March, what do you recommend doing with the sample port on the frustum during actual force measurements?

It seems that leaving a 50ohm termination on there during the actual force testing will just ensure energy will get coupled back out of the cavity and into the load, which is what I don't want to happen.

Should I leave it terminated with a termination with a very low rating? Or should I remove the probe inside? Or should I just remove the connector and tape over it with copper tape? Connect it to some test equipment? Something else?

What do you do?

Thanks for all that you are doing.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Attached are VSWR plots for the unloaded frustum configuration currently in my possession between 2400-2500mhz. The cursors are at the MIN VSWR. The peaks of each plot is a VSWR of 99.

...
Would like to perform some calculations of Poynting vector, etc.

What are the geometrical dimensions of your truncated cone?

Internal Diameter of Big Base = ?
Internal Diameter of Small Base = ?
Internal Axial Length (perpendicular to the bases) = ?

I posted pics of the dims earlier, it was built based off of this which came from Eagleworks:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharing
(see frustum.jpg)

Measurements by me are here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1345818#msg1345818
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTl90eDBuMklOeTg&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM

Internal Diameter of Big Base = 11"
Internal Diameter of Small Base = 6.25"
Internal Axial Length (perpendicular to the bases) = 9"

« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 01:46 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
@Paul March, what do you recommend doing with the sample port on the frustum during actual force measurements?

It seems that leaving a 50ohm termination on there during the actual force testing will just ensure energy will get coupled back out of the cavity and into the load, which is what I don't want to happen.

Should I leave it terminated with a termination with a very low rating? Or should I remove the probe inside? Or should I just remove the connector and tape over it with copper tape? Connect it to some test equipment? Something else?

What do you do?


Thanks for all that you are doing.

Not NASA here, of course, but I would just leave the connector "open", ie. high impedance.  (what impedance are you looking into as a monitor ?)

My personal favorite would be to use it as feedback in an oscillator configuration.  (I'm "biased" )

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
@Paul March, what do you recommend doing with the sample port on the frustum during actual force measurements?

It seems that leaving a 50ohm termination on there during the actual force testing will just ensure energy will get coupled back out of the cavity and into the load, which is what I don't want to happen.

Should I leave it terminated with a termination with a very low rating? Or should I remove the probe inside? Or should I just remove the connector and tape over it with copper tape? Connect it to some test equipment? Something else?

What do you do?


Thanks for all that you are doing.

Not NASA here, of course, but I would just leave the connector "open", ie. high impedance.  (what impedance are you looking into as a monitor ?)

My personal favorite would be to use it as feedback in an oscillator configuration.  (I'm "biased" )

Everything I am working is 50ohm, which has to be matched *. With the sample port in place (with a properly configured probe capable of providing a good sample) that is open (not terminated) or shorted you get this on the input for VSWR.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoWXFTeFhEbXVsUG8&usp=sharing&tid=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM
(see not terminated.jpg.... If I direct link to a pic in my Google Drive, Google pulls the plug eventually due to quota or something.)

This is bad.

I suspect the right thing to do is to put a 1/4 watt terminator on there, that is if the frustum isn't properly coupled to a piece of test equipment like a spectrum analyzer being protected by an attenuator.

*I don't intend on using a monitor or a feedback circuit. If for example the cavity falls off resonance due to heat, the wideband signal it is getting fed with will be enough to compensate.

The signal looks like this:
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 02:07 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Can you use your analyser in a reflectometer configuration ?   Or is that what you are already doing ?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 02:09 PM by Notsosureofit »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Folks:

While you think about possible explanations for the gathering body of data that surrounds the EM-Drive, I've been given permission by Dr. John Brandenburg to post his latest conjecture on how he thinks the EM-Drive AKA Q-Thruster can generate a thrust signal that does not violate the conservations laws.  It's not too far off what Dr. White is proposing, but it's just different enough to be of interest especially to the GRT crowd.

Best, Paul M.

The author has an experimental box: "the Morningstar Energy Box" (which he also refers to in the above cited publication) which he claims (in a 2014 publication http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Journals/Journal-of-Space-Exploration/index.html see below) produced a steady state 14 pound reduction out of 190 pounds or 7.3% and a transient loss of 12% of the total weight.  They claim to have observed "nonlinear energy Box phenomenon similar to Russian claims"

http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Journals/Journal-of-Space-Exploration/Volume-3-Issue-1/vol_3_issue_1_file_1.pdf


Russian "box"

The "Magnetic Energy Converter" designed by V. V. Roshchin and S. M. Godin

http://www.google.com/patents/US6822361?dq=6822361


« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 02:39 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Can you use your analyser in a reflectometer configuration ?

Um, no I don't think it can do that. I have an Agilent E4443A, and also an 8562A and 8562EC to use. I can't take test equipment home from work anyway. So all I can do is test at work to get data, then use the data at home.
I've had to work all weekend, so that's why I'm in test mode instead of building things and trying to find a lathe to use..... ;)
« Last Edit: 03/22/2015 02:18 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: