....Jose,I am not arguing against my paper. You know may take. I am questioning your proof based on a functional form that has the mathematical properties I have shown. I know by myself, and I stated it in the draft, that here we are working with really small values. As you can see, I have not attempted any computation of a force, if any, or thrust. I am thinking about this and I am trying to work with real values. But please note also that this is a function of three independent variables: r1, r2 and U0.

Quote from: StrongGR on 05/17/2015 02:12 PM....Jose,I am not arguing against my paper. You know may take. I am questioning your proof based on a functional form that has the mathematical properties I have shown. I know by myself, and I stated it in the draft, that here we are working with really small values. As you can see, I have not attempted any computation of a force, if any, or thrust. I am thinking about this and I am trying to work with real values. But please note also that this is a function of three independent variables: r1, r2 and U0.Marco,Please1) make a plot (you can sketch the geometry by hand with pencil and paper, scan it and post the image ) of the geometry of the truncated cone you have in mind: clearly showing what you define to be r1, r2, h, and the z and r coordinates2) explicitly show what is the optimal geometry of the truncated cone, as per your paper.and then we can continue

Quote from: txdrive on 05/17/2015 01:37 PMWe know from direct measurements that EM fields behave in a specific manner, down to parts per trillion. Momentum which is carried by an electromagnetic field can be measured directly as the field strength, with far greater precision. This knowledge puts a very low upper bound on the net momentum that EM fields can acquire and exchange with the cavity. We also know that a high Q cavity of say 50,000 will do 50,000 bounces of the em field, each adding to the generated force. Shawyer's Force equation of (2 Po Df Q) / c clearly states Q is the way the EM Drive multiplies the very low force of one way to a much higher value.Same effect used with laser thruster:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

We know from direct measurements that EM fields behave in a specific manner, down to parts per trillion. Momentum which is carried by an electromagnetic field can be measured directly as the field strength, with far greater precision. This knowledge puts a very low upper bound on the net momentum that EM fields can acquire and exchange with the cavity.

...There is no claim to support here. It is also difficult for me to understand what you believe to have proven. There is no error there and you can do any computation you like with that. This is a real wasting of time.

Quote from: StrongGR on 05/17/2015 02:28 PMQuote from: Rodal on 05/17/2015 02:17 PMQuote from: StrongGR on 05/17/2015 02:12 PM....Jose,I am not arguing against my paper. You know may take. I am questioning your proof based on a functional form that has the mathematical properties I have shown. I know by myself, and I stated it in the draft, that here we are working with really small values. As you can see, I have not attempted any computation of a force, if any, or thrust. I am thinking about this and I am trying to work with real values. But please note also that this is a function of three independent variables: r1, r2 and U0.Marco,Please1) make a plot (you can sketch the geometry by hand with pencil and paper, scan it and post the image ) of the geometry of the truncated cone you have in mind: clearly showing what you define to be r1, r2, h, and the z and r coordinates2) explicitly show what is the optimal geometry of the truncated cone, as per your paper.and then we can continue I think you are completely off the target. What the heck we have to continue? You can choice r2>r1 and live happily with that or the other way around. Choose what you prefer and keep it. There is no claim to support here. It is also difficult for me to understand what you believe to have proven. There is no error there and you can do any computation you like with that. This is a real wasting of time.Marco,1) You wrote a very interesting paper, concluding that there is a geometry (I presume an optimal geometry) of a truncated cone that "comes to the rescue" which I assume it to mean that maximizes the General Relatvity effect in this cavity.2) My proof, based on your paper shows that that optimal geometry is a cylinder with flat faces and negligible axial length. The optimal geometry according to the equations in your paper being much closer to the Cannae cavity and the pillbox shape used by Dr. White than the geometry of a conical cavity.3) What is the actual optimal geometry of the cavity to maximize the GR effect, according to your paper? I think that for you showing what is this optimal geometry would be great conclusion to your interesting paper.

Quote from: Rodal on 05/17/2015 02:17 PMQuote from: StrongGR on 05/17/2015 02:12 PM....Jose,I am not arguing against my paper. You know may take. I am questioning your proof based on a functional form that has the mathematical properties I have shown. I know by myself, and I stated it in the draft, that here we are working with really small values. As you can see, I have not attempted any computation of a force, if any, or thrust. I am thinking about this and I am trying to work with real values. But please note also that this is a function of three independent variables: r1, r2 and U0.Marco,Please1) make a plot (you can sketch the geometry by hand with pencil and paper, scan it and post the image ) of the geometry of the truncated cone you have in mind: clearly showing what you define to be r1, r2, h, and the z and r coordinates2) explicitly show what is the optimal geometry of the truncated cone, as per your paper.and then we can continue I think you are completely off the target. What the heck we have to continue? You can choice r2>r1 and live happily with that or the other way around. Choose what you prefer and keep it. There is no claim to support here. It is also difficult for me to understand what you believe to have proven. There is no error there and you can do any computation you like with that. This is a real wasting of time.

...But this is exactly what I am doing now to update my draft. Mathematica is running computing a realistic k with the values r1 and r2 taken from Minotti's paper. I need to estimate U0. In a few days I can give an answer to your question.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/15/2015 07:36 AMDoes the Flight Thruster have a slightly concave top and convex bottom? Would appear so from the gaps.Enhanced the photo as much as I can for those wishing to try to extract dimensions as this photo is better that the original as it has no distortion.If we can find the dimension<M The big end most certainly should be convex and the small end concave, relative from the outside of course. The big end and small end radii should not be coincidence but offset having the small end radius much larger than the big end. In fact, it might be better for the small end to be flat.

Does the Flight Thruster have a slightly concave top and convex bottom? Would appear so from the gaps.Enhanced the photo as much as I can for those wishing to try to extract dimensions as this photo is better that the original as it has no distortion.If we can find the dimension<M

Quote from: StrongGR on 05/17/2015 02:42 PM...But this is exactly what I am doing now to update my draft. Mathematica is running computing a realistic k with the values r1 and r2 taken from Minotti's paper. I need to estimate U0. In a few days I can give an answer to your question.Suggestion: to use the geometrical values used by Greg Egan r1=2.5 cm, r2=10 cm, θw = 20° here: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html as Minotti quotes Egan's equations in Minotti's paper, and Egan shows explicit field solutions and the energy for those geometrical parameters.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/17/2015 01:52 PMQuote from: txdrive on 05/17/2015 01:37 PMWe know from direct measurements that EM fields behave in a specific manner, down to parts per trillion. Momentum which is carried by an electromagnetic field can be measured directly as the field strength, with far greater precision. This knowledge puts a very low upper bound on the net momentum that EM fields can acquire and exchange with the cavity. We also know that a high Q cavity of say 50,000 will do 50,000 bounces of the em field, each adding to the generated force. Shawyer's Force equation of (2 Po Df Q) / c clearly states Q is the way the EM Drive multiplies the very low force of one way to a much higher value.Same effect used with laser thruster:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster2/c, which is 6.6 uN/kW , times 50 000 , is 0.33 N/kW . Multiply by the bound on EM exchanging momentum with something unknown, a very small force (nanoNewtons). edit: typo.

....Shawyer did say the wave slides up and down the cavity walls and exerts no significant force on it. From this diagram, that seems to be the case. It does slide up and down the cavity walls, while always being at a right angle to it....

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/17/2015 02:53 PM....Shawyer did say the wave slides up and down the cavity walls and exerts no significant force on it. From this diagram, that seems to be the case. It does slide up and down the cavity walls, while always being at a right angle to it....Greg Egan first considered the spherical ends, as a response to Shawyer's article with flat faces in the New Scientist article.See http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html where Greg Egan shows that the stresses on the inner conical surfaces are not negligible: following Maxwell's equations they exactly balance out the stresses on the spherical faces to end with zero net force on the EM Drive.Did Shawyer publish a paper answering in detail the objections raised by Greg Egan's ?

...Shawyer published this measured thrust as did the Chinese and why they think it does what it does. Someone who publishes a paper claiming it can't work because of their theory, just might be politely ignored as they get on with business.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/17/2015 03:12 PM...Shawyer published this measured thrust as did the Chinese and why they think it does what it does. Someone who publishes a paper claiming it can't work because of their theory, just might be politely ignored as they get on with business.Greg Egan did not claim that the EM Drive cannot work because of a theory invented by Greg Egan. It is not his theory. Greg Egan is showing again a well-known result.Instead, Greg Egan showed again, an already known-proof that the stresses due to standing waves on the inner walls of a resonating cavity of any arbitrary shape whatsoever perfectly balance, and therefore there is zero net force in any direction, according to Maxwell's equations.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/17/2015 03:12 PM...Shawyer published this measured thrust as did the Chinese and why they think it does what it does. Someone who publishes a paper claiming it can't work because of their theory, just might be politely ignored as they get on with business.Greg Egan did not claim that the EM Drive cannot work because of a theory invented by Greg Egan. Instead, Greg Egan showed again, a known-proof that the stresses on the inner walls of a resonating cavity of any arbitrary shape whatsoever (as long as it is closed) perfectly balance, and therefore there is zero net force in any direction, according to Maxwell's equations.

Quote from: Rodal on 05/17/2015 03:25 PMQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/17/2015 03:12 PM...Shawyer published this measured thrust as did the Chinese and why they think it does what it does. Someone who publishes a paper claiming it can't work because of their theory, just might be politely ignored as they get on with business.Greg Egan did not claim that the EM Drive cannot work because of a theory invented by Greg Egan. Instead, Greg Egan showed again, a known-proof that the stresses on the inner walls of a resonating cavity of any arbitrary shape whatsoever (as long as it is closed) perfectly balance, and therefore there is zero net force in any direction, according to Maxwell's equations.If you can, please answer my simple question:How can a curved EM wave, as in the attachment, touching the cavity wall at right angles to the wall, cause any force to be generated on the wall?