Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1879756 times)

Offline apoc2021

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 27
Let me get this straight. Many acknowledge that properly explaining EMdrive thrust may require new physics. Here, Todd has boldly proposed some pretty new physics. And a paper published by Nature just yesterday supports this new framework?

I have to say - this is pretty damn amazing. Keep up the great work guys, and please let's all keep an open mind! It takes courage to publicly state and defend one's own views and if there's one thing EVERYONE can agree on, its that the truth is out there.

If we support each other, we just might find it!

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Let me get this straight. Many acknowledge that properly explaining EMdrive thrust may require new physics. Here, Todd has boldly proposed some pretty new physics. And a paper published by Nature just yesterday supports this new framework?

I have to say - this is pretty damn amazing. Keep up the great work guys, and please let's all keep an open mind! It takes courage to publicly state and defend one's own views and if there's one thing EVERYONE can agree on, its that the truth is out there.

If we support each other, we just might find it!
I agree that Todd deserves praise for attempting to explain with Physics how can something like the EM Drive work for space propulsion.  It is quite a challenge to come up with a reasonable explanation.

However, I do not see a direct connection yet between the article in Nature and the work of Igor Pikovski, about quantum decoherence to what Todd has been proposing. 

The microwave electromagnetic fields inside the EM Drive are carried by photons, which are quantum particles.  Photons are capable of displaying quantum coherence and decoherence.   The laser, superconductivity and superfluidity are examples of highly coherent quantum systems whose effects are evident at the macroscopic scale.

I know of nothing in the EM Drive experiments that has shown a state of quantum coherence, and therefore nothing that has shown that decoherence takes place in the EM Drive.  So where is the connection to the EM Drive?

Regarding Todd's papers, if he posited quantum coherence, I missed that in his papers.  My understanding is the contrary, that his emphasis is on geometric attenuation producing evanescent waves that can carry momentum.  Todd is not even looking for a super-high Q, but portrays the tug-of-war between Q storage and attenuation and evanescent waves as what could enable the EM Drive to work.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 12:10 AM by Rodal »

Offline TheTraveller

I have the following design equation for a box resonator.
L,M,N being the number of half wavelengths for the box dimensions d,b,a respectively.


Is there a similar equation for truncated cone shaped resonators?  I do not trust my ability to derive it.
Thanks.

Here is a closed-form solution for a cylindrical cavity:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity

You need a table of values for the zeros Xmn of Bessel Cylindrical function and the zeros X'mn of its derivative, here you have such a table, to 15 digits:

http://wwwal.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp/www/accelerator/a4/besselroot.htmlx

You also have to separately calculate the cut-off frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cutoff_frequency#Waveguides) for different modes to verify that they are not cut-off, when using the closed-form solution and the table of values.

There is no closed-form solution for a truncated cone cavity.

There are exact solutions for the truncated cone, but you have to solve two separate eigenvalue problems, one eigenvalue problem in terms of Legendre Associated functions and another eigenvalue problem in terms of spherical Bessel functions.

Greg Egan shows an exact solution for modes that are constant in the azimuthal direction: TE0np and TM0np, here:  http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

TheTraveller has constructed an Excel spreadsheet solution based on Shawyer's ad-hoc approximation which approximates the truncated cone as large number of small cylindrical waveguides.  The problem is that he still uses equations that are based on a cylinder.  The electromagnetic field inside a cylinder has a longitudinal variation described by harmonic functions (sines and cosines, depending on the longitudinal mode number "p").  Instead,  the electromagnetic field inside a truncated cone varies according to spherical Bessel functions.

For an approximate solution you might as well use the cylindrical cavity exact solution:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_cavity#Cylindrical_cavity

and use the Mean of the Big and Small diameters as the diameter of the cylinder.

Attached is what you fail to accept:

I deduced the internal dimensions of the Flight Thruster and set them to Roger Shawyer. He put them through the SPR inhouse EM Drive software package and reported back to me that the dimensions would achieve TE013 resonance at 3.9003 GHz. If a added 0.6mm to the length, then resonance was at 3.85GHz, which is the frequency used by the Flight Thruster.

SPR's software predicted the correct resonance for my derived Flight Thruster dimensions.

My EM Drive Calculator SS now matches, with Roger Shawyer's help, the SPR software results.

Would be really interested to see what TE013 resonance your solution generates from these values?

My values:

Frustum big diameter    m   0.2314000
Frustum small diameter   m   0.1257000
Frustum centre length   m   0.1386000
External Rf                   Hz   3,900,300,000

Adjusted length:

Frustum big diameter    m   0.2314000
Frustum small diameter   m   0.1257000
Frustum centre length   m   0.1413000
External Rf                  Hz   3,850,000,000

Await your data.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2015 11:59 PM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Are you going to be able to manufacture to sub-mm tolerances?

Offline ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 59
This is probably easily debunked, but it does pertain to Conservation of Momentum.

Couple days ago, I was at a lake.  Glass calm, no waves, no current.

I loaded myself into a canoe for a little spin.  Got out into the water. Drifted to a complete or near complete halt.  Then...

while remaining seated AND hands holding on tight to the side of the canoe, I 'threw' my torso forward.  I never actually left the seat.  But the canoe did move in that direction.  I then straightened myself up (slowly) and repeated the process a few times.  Each time, the canoe would shoot forward (ok move forward at less than paddle speed) for about two yards or so...but there was never any corresponding 'back motion' when I straightened.

So...violation of CoM or something else?  And could what I was doing be used as an analogy for whatever is going on with the EM Drive?
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 12:00 AM by ThinkerX »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
..Await your data.
I am writing a paper showing why it is wrong to use for truncated cones the cut-off frequency equations based on cylinders, as you are doing in your spreadsheet.

The paper will show how can EM Drive researchers exploit the fact that cut-off frequencies for truncated cones do not work the way you are modeling it.

The results are very interesting as they support some of the stuff that Todd has been writing about :-)  .

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Is it really correct to view an EM drive as a closed system?  For instance, as far as I know, no one has measured the external magnetic fields these things throw off.  Most experiments use copper fustrums and so they must be coupled electromagnetically to the outside world.

True, there is no real magnetic insulator and the best you can do is reroute the fields with a metal like iron or steel, but copper no. Copper will allow you in a moving electric field to induce another field within it (like the old trick of a magnet dropped through a copper pipe. http://video.mit.edu/watch/physics-demo-lenzs-law-with-copper-pipe-10268/) and corresponding eddy currents that in effect create their own magnetic field.

Shell

Offline TheTraveller

..Await your data.
I am writing a paper showing why it is wrong to use for truncated cones the cut-off frequency equations based on cylinders, as you are doing in your spreadsheet.

The paper will show how can EM Drive researchers exploit the fact that cut-off frequencies for truncated cones do not work the way you are modeling it.

The results are very interesting as they support some of the stuff that Todd has been writing about :-)  .

You seem to be trying to void my question.

The SPR software predicts the frequency used in the Flight Thruster tests. My ss version of the SPR software reports the same frequence. The Flight Thruster is a real device that has reported thrust while operating at 3.85GHz.

Please share the resonant frequency your method reports using my dimensions. I suggest that if it does not report 3.85GHz, then it is wrong.

As for Todd's theory, it may well be correct but like the use of dielectrics, only produce weak thrust. Roger Shawyer has made a very clear comment about dielectrics and cutoff.

1) Dielectrics should not be used as they reduce Q, thrust and increase losses.

2) Run the small end plate just ABOVE cutoff. To get Todd's condition, the small end needs to run BELOW cutoff, which is opposite to the advise of Roger Shawyer.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 12:30 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
You might want to bookmark this link: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/em-drive-experiment

This is my eustream video channel where I will try and broadcast a live 1st test of my humble DIYDrive experiment in July. I may upload some videos in the meantime as I get further into the build.

I have set chat up as well, but only plan to use it after a video upload or live event. I won't be routinely monitoring it. I'll hang here for most interactions.

For now, you can log on to ustream for free, preferably creating the same username as you have on NSF, so I will know who I'm chatting with.

Oh, forgot to mention. Click FOLLOW once your account is created, then you'll receive notices when uploads occur.

If you share your dimensions,, flat or spherical end plates, Rf source (bandwidth if known) & excitation mode, I'll create a ss for your project.

Sure, flat endplates, 11.01 x 6.25 x 9 inch (dia big x dia small x ht), 8W CW source (no am/fm/phase modulation @ 2.450 Ghz. More info here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=978733

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
..Await your data.
I am writing a paper showing why it is wrong to use for truncated cones the cut-off frequency equations based on cylinders, as you are doing in your spreadsheet.

The paper will show how can EM Drive researchers exploit the fact that cut-off frequencies for truncated cones do not work the way you are modeling it.

The results are very interesting as they support some of the stuff that Todd has been writing about :-)  .

You seem to be trying to void my question.

The SPR software predicts the frequency used in the Flight Thruster tests. My ss version of the SPR software reports the same frequence. The Flight Thruster is a real device that has reported thrust while operating at 3.85GHz.

Please share the resonant frequency your method reports using my dimensions. I suggest that if it does not report 3.85GHz, then it is wrong.

As for Todd's theory, it may well be correct but like the use of dielectrics only produce weak thrust. Roger Shawyer has made a very clear comment about dielectrics and cutoff.

1) Dielectrics should not be used as they reduce Q and increase losses.

2) Run the small end plate just ABOVE cutoff. To get Todd's condition, the small end needs to run BELOW cutoff, which is opposite to the advise of Roger Shawyer.

As far as I know the only EM Drive researcher that has verified a mode shape in operation has been Paul March at NASA.

How does Shawyer know what mode(s) where resonant at 3.85GHz?

Unless you show experimental proof (as Paul March at NASA presented) that Roger Shawyer experimentally verified the mode shape, I suggest to you that all that Roger Shawyer knew (for example by looking at S21 and S11) was that the EM Drive was at resonant at some unknown mode shape(s), and could measure the Q, but did not precisely know what were the resonant modes, and their participation in resonance. 

If you can present experimental proof from Roger Shawyer that the Flight Thruster was resonating in mode TE013 at 3.85 GHz, it would be great, as it would be the second EM Drive researcher to prove what mode was the EM Drive operating at.

If Roger Shawyer cannot provide experimental proof of what mode shape he was operating at, the proper verification of a code should be based on mode shape TM212 with the NASA truncated cone, since that is the only one for which we have experimental verification.

______________________________________________

Actually, since you are working on this, to my knowledge, Shawyer did not provide (in his publications) the experimentally measured Q for the Flight Thruster, either.  Do you know of a publication from Shawyer giving the Q, so that we can put this information in the wiki Experimental Data table ?
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 12:50 AM by Rodal »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601

Offline TheTraveller

You might want to bookmark this link: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/em-drive-experiment

This is my eustream video channel where I will try and broadcast a live 1st test of my humble DIYDrive experiment in July. I may upload some videos in the meantime as I get further into the build.

I have set chat up as well, but only plan to use it after a video upload or live event. I won't be routinely monitoring it. I'll hang here for most interactions.

For now, you can log on to ustream for free, preferably creating the same username as you have on NSF, so I will know who I'm chatting with.

Oh, forgot to mention. Click FOLLOW once your account is created, then you'll receive notices when uploads occur.

If you share your dimensions,, flat or spherical end plates, Rf source (bandwidth if known) & excitation mode, I'll create a ss for your project.

Sure, flat endplates, 11.01 x 6.25 x 9 inch (dia big x dia small x ht), 8W CW source (no am/fm/phase modulation @ 2.450 Ghz. More info here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=978733

Your SS attached.

A quick scan through 80 modes failed to find any resonance at 2.45GHz. 2.507GHz (outer end plate edge) thru 2.654GHz (centre of end plates) should get you TE013 resonance.
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline TheTraveller

If Roger Shawyer cannot provide experimental proof of what mode shape he was operating at, the proper verification of a code should be based on mode shape TM212 with the NASA truncated cone, since that is the only one for which we have experimental verification.

______________________________________________

Actually, since you are working on this, to my knowledge, Shawyer did not provide (in his publications) the experimentally measured Q for the Flight Thruster, either.  Do you know of a publication from Shawyer giving the Q, so that we can put this information in the wiki Experimental Data table ?

Shawyer has stated, several times, the Flight Thruster Q as 50 to 60,000 and he told me the mode was TE013.

As for proof, I gave him my dimensions and desired mode (TE013), he gave me the frequency, which matched what I got using the SPR method in my SS, which matches what he used to excite the Flight Thruster. As far as I'm concerned, Game Over. His method correctly predicts the resonant TE013 frequency as 3.85GHz.

When can I expect YOUR resonance date for the dimensions and frequency I provided?
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 01:09 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
This is probably easily debunked, but it does pertain to Conservation of Momentum.

Couple days ago, I was at a lake.  Glass calm, no waves, no current.

I loaded myself into a canoe for a little spin.  Got out into the water. Drifted to a complete or near complete halt.  Then...

while remaining seated AND hands holding on tight to the side of the canoe, I 'threw' my torso forward.  I never actually left the seat.  But the canoe did move in that direction.  I then straightened myself up (slowly) and repeated the process a few times.  Each time, the canoe would shoot forward (ok move forward at less than paddle speed) for about two yards or so...but there was never any corresponding 'back motion' when I straightened.

So...violation of CoM or something else?  And could what I was doing be used as an analogy for whatever is going on with the EM Drive?

Quick thought, there could be an equal and opposite kinetic force transmitted to the lake in the form of water displacement.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
Is it really correct to view an EM drive as a closed system?  For instance, as far as I know, no one has measured the external magnetic fields these things throw off.  Most experiments use copper fustrums and so they must be coupled electromagnetically to the outside world.

True, there is no real magnetic insulator and the best you can do is reroute the fields with a metal like iron or steel, but copper no. Copper will allow you in a moving electric field to induce another field within it (like the old trick of a magnet dropped through a copper pipe. http://video.mit.edu/watch/physics-demo-lenzs-law-with-copper-pipe-10268/) and corresponding eddy currents that in effect create their own magnetic field.

Shell

Thanks Shell! Lenz's Law is the perfect example. As the magnet passes through the pipe, it does work to induce Eddy currents in the copper. Those currents "oppose" the change in magnetic flux. The magnet is attempting to drag the copper pipe with it by transferring momentum to the pipe. The magnet feels the back-reaction which opposes gravity in this example.

In the EM Drive, I believe the Eddy currents in the copper are being dragged forward by the gradient in the B-flux, which establishes a relative potential in the frustum. When it moves forward, a new induction field is generated that opposes the decrease in flux. The stored energy is dissipated as work. At least, that's how I see it "today". :)
Todd
 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
If Roger Shawyer cannot provide experimental proof of what mode shape he was operating at, the proper verification of a code should be based on mode shape TM212 with the NASA truncated cone, since that is the only one for which we have experimental verification.

______________________________________________

Actually, since you are working on this, to my knowledge, Shawyer did not provide (in his publications) the experimentally measured Q for the Flight Thruster, either.  Do you know of a publication from Shawyer giving the Q, so that we can put this information in the wiki Experimental Data table ?

Shawyer has stated, several times, the Flight Thruster Q as 50 to 60,000 and he told me the mode was TE013.

As for proof, I gave him my dimensions and desired mode (TE013), he gave me the frequency, which matched what I got using the SPR method in my SS, which matches what he used to excite the Flight Thruster. As far as I'm concerned, Game Over. His method correctly predicts the resonant TE013 frequency as 3.85GHz.

When can I expect YOUR resonance date for the dimensions and frequency I provided?

In other words, Shawyer never experimentally verified that the mode shape of resonance was TE013,  all he knew was that the EM Drive was resonating and he apparently just assumed that it must have been TE013 because his calculations told him to be so?  No experimental mode shape verification?

If so, the only valid data point for code verification remains TM212 from NASA Eagleworks.  We cannot verify codes based on second-hand information from Shawyer (he has not published those values) and where there has not even been experimental verification of the mode shape.

Concerning the Q value for the Flight Thruser all the other Q's in the wiki have been reported directly by the researchers.  For consistency, we need a publication from Shawyer where he directly reports the Q for the flight. thruster
« Last Edit: 06/17/2015 01:21 AM by Rodal »

Offline demofsky

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 1671
This is probably easily debunked, but it does pertain to Conservation of Momentum.

Couple days ago, I was at a lake.  Glass calm, no waves, no current.

I loaded myself into a canoe for a little spin.  Got out into the water. Drifted to a complete or near complete halt.  Then...

while remaining seated AND hands holding on tight to the side of the canoe, I 'threw' my torso forward.  I never actually left the seat.  But the canoe did move in that direction.  I then straightened myself up (slowly) and repeated the process a few times.  Each time, the canoe would shoot forward (ok move forward at less than paddle speed) for about two yards or so...but there was never any corresponding 'back motion' when I straightened.

So...violation of CoM or something else?  And could what I was doing be used as an analogy for whatever is going on with the EM Drive?

Essentially, you are in an open system (the lake) and are relying on the friction (viscosity) of the water to hold the canoe as you come back to a full sitting position.

That said, I am gradually starting to wonder whether EM drives are operating in a similar fashion.  The issue is whether EM drives really are closed or are in fact doing something like your experiment.  The question here is what is the friction that the EM drives are using.  It could be magnetism or something related to the quantum vacuum (aka the propeller theory).  It could even be something like columbic potential..

My money, rightly or wrongly, is on something simple that is surprising.

Offline TheTraveller

If Roger Shawyer cannot provide experimental proof of what mode shape he was operating at, the proper verification of a code should be based on mode shape TM212 with the NASA truncated cone, since that is the only one for which we have experimental verification.

______________________________________________

Actually, since you are working on this, to my knowledge, Shawyer did not provide (in his publications) the experimentally measured Q for the Flight Thruster, either.  Do you know of a publication from Shawyer giving the Q, so that we can put this information in the wiki Experimental Data table ?

Shawyer has stated, several times, the Flight Thruster Q as 50 to 60,000 and he told me the mode was TE013.

As for proof, I gave him my dimensions and desired mode (TE013), he gave me the frequency, which matched what I got using the SPR method in my SS, which matches what he used to excite the Flight Thruster. As far as I'm concerned, Game Over. His method correctly predicts the resonant TE013 frequency as 3.85GHz.

When can I expect YOUR resonance date for the dimensions and frequency I provided?

In other words, Shawyer never experimentally verified that the mode shape of resonance was TE013,  all he knew was that the EM Drive was resonating and he apparently just assumed that it must have been TE013 because his calculations told him to be so?  No experimental mode shape verification?

If so, the only valid data point for code verification remains TM212 from NASA Eagleworks.  We cannot verify codes based on second-hand information from Shawyer (he has not published those values) and where there has not even been experimental verification of the mode shape.

Concerning the Q value for the Flight Thruser all the other Q's in the wiki have been reported directly by the researchers.  For consistency, we need a publication from Shawyer where directly reports the Q for the flight. thruster

Please stop diverting away from my question.

What is YOUR TE013 resonance frequency for the 2 sets of dimensions I provided?
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
You might want to bookmark this link: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/em-drive-experiment

This is my eustream video channel where I will try and broadcast a live 1st test of my humble DIYDrive experiment in July. I may upload some videos in the meantime as I get further into the build.

I have set chat up as well, but only plan to use it after a video upload or live event. I won't be routinely monitoring it. I'll hang here for most interactions.

For now, you can log on to ustream for free, preferably creating the same username as you have on NSF, so I will know who I'm chatting with.

Oh, forgot to mention. Click FOLLOW once your account is created, then you'll receive notices when uploads occur.

If you share your dimensions,, flat or spherical end plates, Rf source (bandwidth if known) & excitation mode, I'll create a ss for your project.

Sure, flat endplates, 11.01 x 6.25 x 9 inch (dia big x dia small x ht), 8W CW source (no am/fm/phase modulation @ 2.450 Ghz. More info here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=978733

Your SS attached.

A quick scan through 80 modes failed to find any resonance at 2.45GHz. 2.507GHz (outer end plate edge) thru 2.654GHz (centre of end plates) should get you TE013 resonance.

Thks...since it early in my build, can you suggest measurements for 2.450 ghz resonance? Can change mechanicals not freq as easily...

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
...
However, I do not see a direct connection yet between the article in Nature and the work of Igor Pikovski, about quantum decoherence to what Todd has been proposing. 

The microwave electromagnetic fields inside the EM Drive are carried by photons, which are quantum particles.  Photons are capable of displaying quantum coherence and decoherence.   The laser, superconductivity and superfluidity are examples of highly coherent quantum systems whose effects are evident at the macroscopic scale.

I know of nothing in the EM Drive experiments that has shown a state of quantum coherence, and therefore nothing that has shown that decoherence takes place in the EM Drive.  So where is the connection to the EM Drive?

Regarding Todd's papers, if he posited quantum coherence, I missed that in his papers.  My understanding is the contrary, that his emphasis is on geometric attenuation producing evanescent waves that can carry momentum.  Todd is not even looking for a super-high Q, but portrays the tug-of-war between Q storage and attenuation and evanescent waves as what could enable the EM Drive to work.

Jose,

If I were talking about gravity in atoms, their paper would be a a spot-on way to look at it. Equation's (5) & (6) are similar in form to the Zitterbewegung motion of the electron in the Dirac equation that I typically refer to. When 2 particles are coupled, they have coherent states. In a gravitational field, we have asymmetry in time.

In the case of the frustum, it is not "quantum" but the standing waves are still a coherent state, just as they are in a laser or a maser. We have 2 waves, "forward" and "backward" that are phase shifted due to the asymmetrical attenuation, i.e., asymmetrical wave velocity, guide wavelength, geometry, whatever. The two waves are out of phase and you can see in their Fig. 1c, that the phase shifted superposition has a component along the "real" Power axis, i.e, the Power Factor is not 0.

This action causes the center of mass between the two to shift. The "decoherence" they are referring to, is what I've been referring to as "constructive and destructive interference". This is the information contained in the Matrix terms they are referring to. I'm just saying it in my own Engineering-speak. If the frustum were replaced by a cylinder, this phase interference would not happen. The frustum is a nice conical-section representation of a spherically symmetric gravitational field, that only exists over a very narrow bandwidth. :)
Todd

Tags: