Quote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 03:28 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 11:56 AMThe theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.A sail in what medium?Nothing. Momentum from nothing.There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts. https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8And a post I put together about the history of this:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.html

Quote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 11:56 AMThe theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.A sail in what medium?

The theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.

Nature is going to come out the way she is

Quote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 05:31 PMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 03:28 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 11:56 AMThe theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.A sail in what medium?Nothing. Momentum from nothing.There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts. https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8And a post I put together about the history of this:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.htmlWell as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion mafia" actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.

Quote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 04:14 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 03:55 AMQuote from: LasJayhawk on 05/03/2015 05:43 AMSo this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide. The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter, K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.Here is how it conserves momentum;In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,p => p*sqrt(K)In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity. However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_EngineeringTodd D.In what sense does this conserve momentum?Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,p => p*sqrt(K)THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.Regards,Todd D.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 03:55 AMQuote from: LasJayhawk on 05/03/2015 05:43 AMSo this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide. The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter, K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.Here is how it conserves momentum;In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,p => p*sqrt(K)In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity. However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_EngineeringTodd D.In what sense does this conserve momentum?Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.

Quote from: LasJayhawk on 05/03/2015 05:43 AMSo this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide. The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter, K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.Here is how it conserves momentum;In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,p => p*sqrt(K)In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity. However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_EngineeringTodd D.

So this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.

Quote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 06:33 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 05:31 PMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 03:28 PMQuote from: Mulletron on 05/04/2015 11:56 AMThe theory papers out there are clearly not the issue to debate here. The device producing anomalous thrust is the issue here. Anybody can come up with a bunk theory. The Emdrive is still a black box deserving expert attention.Everybody assumes that this thing is acting like a quantum rocket (and taking all sorts of liberties with established science to justify that), based off what I see, it is a sail.A sail in what medium?Nothing. Momentum from nothing.There is actually real science here. You have to let go of your preconceptions first, and only stick to the facts. https://www.google.com/search?q=momentum+from+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8And a post I put together about the history of this:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1358659#msg1358659I need you to acknowledge what you know to be fact, and embrace what you don't know. Let any emotional attachment to your worldview go, and you'll find the truth.All of these experimentalist are telling us they're seeing an anomaly. They can't all be idiots. Nature is telling us something. Listen.http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.it/2012/05/what-does-it-mean-to-be-experimentalist.htmlWell as long as you understand that you are getting momentum from nothing then fine. I have no problem with oddball theories as long as you follow the logic all the way through. I'm not getting how this can be called a sail but whatever. You are also in stark disagreement with Shawyer here. That isn't a bad thing as I actually agree with you. The problem is Shawyer is wrong in a very simple and obvious way. That utterly destroys any confidence that he is competent to be involved at all. There are still the other tests but they have their own problems with frame dependence and such that they need to address.And as for my emotional attachment to my "world view" I'm sorry but that's crap. I only note that COM, COE and frame independence are very useful principles and violating them is extremely problematical. If you can do it then my hats off to you but until then my Bayesian priors are elsewhere to say the least.This idea of "emotional attachment" often comes up in fringe subjects. From bigfoot and UFOs to cold fusion the claim is made that people are only protecting the status quo because they have so much invested in it. Emotionally, professionally, financially they are committed. This argument rarely works out. Proponents of cold fusion for example charged that there was a "hot fusion mafia" actively opposing cold fusion research. How did that work out for them? I will leave bigfoot and UFOs for you to ponder.I could offer the counter proposition that people are emotionally drawn to these kinds of hopeful theories. Christians who are sure the second coming is just around the corner. Spiritualists who believe in ghosts and a rich rewarding afterlife. UFO buffs with "I want to believe" t-shirts. And yes space buffs who would really like to have a reactionless drive. Me? I have a lotto ticket that I'm sure has a good chance this week. I think history is much kinder to this proposition than it is to yours.From my part, I will be very happy when we reach a closure about this. Whatever that is.If after doing the replications, the experiments say "It doesn't work, it's a fluke/a mistake/a fraud", I'll be very relieved that science have been made and another dead end has been rooted out.The same in case of having positive results. The truth, whatever that is, has to come out. What I would be very disappointed to see, is for the experiments to be never performed or concluded, because pre-conceptions prevent us from properly validating things out.Happily, this proposals seems to have already entered into popular consciousness, and people, those most unruly and disobedient things, will check things out now. For good or bad for the proposal and/or its critics, they will see it by themselves.It isn't like this is the LHC or ITER either. You don't need billions of dollars for testing this out. It is really cheap, as potential breakthrough-testing setups go.

. On physical grounds one may ask: where does the net electromagneticmomentum come from? Obviously, it cannot come from ’nothing’. We areactually comparing two different physical situations here. The first is whenthe conducting plates are infinitely far separated. This is our initial ’vacuum’state. The final state is when the plates have been brought close to each other,infinitely slowly.

Let the experiments do the talking, become your own worst critic, and find the truth regardless if that inconveniences some or most people's preconceptions. Including yours.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 04:46 AMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 04:14 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 03:55 AMQuote from: LasJayhawk on 05/03/2015 05:43 AMSo this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide. The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter, K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.Here is how it conserves momentum;In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,p => p*sqrt(K)In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity. However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_EngineeringTodd D.In what sense does this conserve momentum?Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,p => p*sqrt(K)THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.Regards,Todd D.What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?Regards,JR

2) here are some tests by Eagleworks and the thrust per watt.A) 1932.6 MHz 5.4 uN/W B) 1936.7 MHz 3.0 uN/WC) 1880.4 MHz 21.3 uN/WD) 2168 MHz no thrust detected, cause thought to be the lack of the dielectric resonator.

Quote from: Rodal on 05/04/2015 06:50 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 04:46 AMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 04:14 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 03:55 AMQuote from: LasJayhawk on 05/03/2015 05:43 AMSo this made me think about the time I took a 3 port circulator apart. For those that are not familiar with circulators, the work like this:Put power in port 1 and it comes out port 2, put it in 2 and it comes out 3, put it in 3 and it comes out 1. All with out much loss. But if you try to go backwards, say 3 to 2, you loose 99% of the power. Cool little device. So when I take it apart all it is is a flat triangle of copper, 2 triangle shaped pieces of ferrite, and a magnet.If you don't know the math behind it, is looks at first blush as "silly" as the emdrive. No way could it do that. But it does. This thing may well work, we just don't know the math.I'm an Engineer and I've studied the Polarizable Vacuum Model of General Relativity. What it would say is the following;As a waveguide, the group velocity is something like;v_g = c x sqrt(1 - (c/2d*f)^2)Where, c is the usual speed of light, d is the diameter of the cylinder, and f is the frequency of the microwave excitation.c/2d = fc, is the Low cut-off frequency of the waveguide. The refractive index depends on the Low cut-off frequency as a function of the diameter, K = 1/sqrt( 1 - (fc/f)^2)For f >> fc, K~1. But for frequencies in the band fc1 < f <~ fc2, K is much larger.There is a strong gradient in the refractive index from one end of the cone to the other. This "mimics" gravity, as interpreted in the PV Model.Therefore, we can assume there is a "gravitational" gradient in the microwave band refractive index, along the length of the cone. At one end they have diameter d1, and at the other end they have diameter d2, and d1 > d2. Below fc1, the mode frequencies exponentially decay to zero. Just like the Casimir effect.Here is how it conserves momentum;In the PV Model, momentum transforms as,p => p*sqrt(K)In a resonant cavity, p is the SUM of all the photons “in phase", minus the losses of the cavity. However, as photons “fall” from the large end toward the small end, they gain momentum, which is passed on to the cone when they are reflected from the small end. The photon then loses momentum as it travels back to the large end, where it imparts “less” momentum to the large end. The result is a NET propulsion in the direction of the small end. In other words, the photons are blue-shifted falling forward, and red-shifted going backwards, due to the gradient in the refractive index. It is literally gravitational red & blue shift, according to the PV Model.The interesting thing is, the refractive index in the waveguide does not depend on the power of the microwaves, or the energy density. It is simply a matter of the geometry and frequency band relative to the cut-off. What matters more, is having enough resonant momentum stored to make the effect noticeable.That’s IMHO as an engineer of course. Any comments?See PV Model: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_%28Spacetime_Metric%29_EngineeringTodd D.In what sense does this conserve momentum?Treat the device as a black box. I don't know or care what is happening inside it. At time T0 it has no momentum. Turn it on and let it accelerate so that it has some velocity and so momentum at time T1. Unless you can point to something with the same amount of momentum going in the other direction then by definition you have violated conservation of momentum. What happens inside the box simple does not affect that fact.When you drop an object and it falls to the ground. Relative to you, it gained momentum from the gravitational field. It did not expel any propellant to fall. The gravitational field is simply a gradient in the refractive index of the vacuum surrounding the Earth. If you can explain conservation of momentum for falling objects in a gravitational field, then you have your answer.(Edit) In other words, if the cavity were not tapered, then you have equal momentum inside traveling left and right. At T0, it will go nowhere. However, because it is tapered such that you have a gradient in the refractive index, then "just like gravity", photons will be blue shifted moving into higher K, and red shifted moving into lower K, because momentum,p => p*sqrt(K)THIS is a violation of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cavity must move to conserve momentum, as it tries to establish equilibrium with it's own internal stress.Regards,Todd D.What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?Regards,JRNot yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.

Quote from: Rodal on 05/04/2015 06:50 PMWhat would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?Regards,JRNot yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.

What would be the equation for the acceleration or the force, given the geometrical dimensions of the truncated cone, the Q, the input power, the frequency, and any other variables? Do you have a closed-form solution that could be compared to actual experimental results and also compared with the equation of Shawyer, and also to the equation of McCulloch ?Regards,JR

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 07:47 PM<snip>Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.

<snip>Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.

Big spike at 1.89 GHz. Is this ideal cavity resonance? Believe I read a circulator is used to deal with isolating standing waves from the signal source. Any standing wave/return loss measurements been made on the frustrum?

Quote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 08:37 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 07:47 PM<snip>Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative. As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.Best Regards,Todd D.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 10:39 PMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 08:37 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 07:47 PM<snip>Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative. As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.Best Regards,Todd D.I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity. Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.

Quote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 11:31 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 10:39 PMQuote from: ppnl on 05/04/2015 08:37 PMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/04/2015 07:47 PM<snip>Not yet... I'm just now coming to grips with this myself. My light-bulb went off when I realized if the frequency of the microwaves is very close to the cut-off frequencies, then the speed of light will have a very large gradient inside the Frustum. Relative to the "traveling" waves (photons) attempting to move at the speed of light from end to end. When they approach the small end, their wavelength is squeezed by the reduced group velocity. Momentum depends on wavelength;p = h/lambdawavelength depends on velocity, and v_g is a variable inside the frustum. That is where the momentum is coming from. Inside the Frustum, relative to the traveling waves you have an accelerated reference frame, into which you are injecting photons that are affected by this manufactured "gravitational" field, that must be compensated for by moving the Frustum.I'll see what I can come up with for a formal equation, but I've got a day job. As for @ppnl, you will never get a Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. The two frames are the Frustum, and the frame of the moving photons inside it. The acceleration is caused by the geometry of the waveguide or a variable refractive index, i.e. the GR or PV Interpretation lead to the same result.Todd D.Well I certainly agree that You will never get Newtonian-type COM equation out of this. That's what makes it a violation of COM. Hard and simple. You are free to develop a theory that does not conserve momentum but you should call it what it is.And I don't care what frames are inside the thing. Frames of reference are mathematical fictions. They don't exist. I should not need two frames of reference but only one and it is chosen only for convenience not truth. Any frame should do. Again you are free to develop a theory with a preferred frame that is real but you need to know that that is what you are doing and tell people that that is what you are doing.If you insist on using Newtonian mechanics, then you will never understand COM in terms of General Relativity. I have not formulated a "new" theory, I'm using GR correctly. If you learn how to do COM in GR, then you would have no trouble seeing that this does indeed conserve momentum. The fact that you "don't care what is inside" is what is preventing you from learning. The "gravitational" field effect of a variable speed of light, acting on the photons inside the Frustum is what makes it move. If you neglect that it has a gravitational field inside it, then you neglect the very essence of how it works and why momentum is conserved. If you want to neglect GR and "believe" COM is violated, then that is your prerogative. As for why it was not discovered already, I'm kicking myself in the a** for not thinking of this setup 10 years ago when I realized we can mimic gravity over a limited bandwidth with much less energy than over the full bandwidth of all light and matter waves. When my colleague and I wrote our EGM III paper, we had a resonant cavity like this in mind, but we didn't consider the taper.Best Regards,Todd D.I don't believe GR is even relevant but even if it were it makes no difference.Take your engine. No power attached, no resonance it is just cold and dead. Calculate the momentum of the entire system. By whatever definition of momentum you are using.Turn on the power. Now you can have imbalanced momentum, resonance whatever you want. I don't care. Let it accelerate up to some velocity. Turn it back off. Let it cool to a cold dead object again. Melt it down to a simple copper sphere if you want. Now calculate the momentum of the system. Again by whatever definition of momentum you are using.If the second calculation does not equal the first then you have violated COM. GR never enters into it because any definition of momentum must reduce to Newtonian momentum on the limit of ordinary objects moving at small speeds in flat space. That value is not conserved and therefore your GR did not conserve momentum. The whole point of momentum is as a conserved value that prevents this kind of thing. Take that away and the whole concept of momentum isn't very useful.There is no reasonable definition of momentum that can call this a conservation of momentum. There is no reason to even want to. Bite the bullet and call it what it is.If you want a mechanism for GR to violate COM that's fine with me. But you do have to call it what it is. And you will have problems showing a detectable GR effect on these energy scales.You puff and blow, but EW is trying to eliminate external forces and so investigate *anomalous forces*I support them in a difficult task... Do you?