Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1804029 times)

Offline JonnyMahony

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Hi guys. The people who are working on the warp theory should look at this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.06917v1.pdf

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Hi guys. The people who are working on the warp theory should look at this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.06917v1.pdf
Welcome to the thread.   Marco Frasca posted this paper initially in these EM Drive threads and engaged in discussions with us,  You can look at his postings by searching for users under User named: "StrongGR",
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 11:33 PM by Rodal »

Offline hhexo

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • An Italian in the UK
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 1
No, I'm saying that the fault is because the big end is closed! If you had resonance on the cone without closing the big end, like rubbing your finger on the rim of a champagne glass, it would be a thruster. As it is now, it's just an energy storage device and possibly an inertial-damper.
Todd

The space between two infinite parallel conductive plates is "closed"... and yet the imbalance of the vacuum expectation value of the EM field inside and outside them causes the Casimir force on the plates.
This is not an attempt at a theory, but just an example to suggest that something that is "closed" isn't necessarily "dead", and maybe to pique and prod your curiosity again. :)

That said, I have toyed with the idea that the forces at play may be Casimirean in nature. An asymmetry in the static Casimir force on the surface area of a cavity (maybe different points on the surface "see" different sets of allowed QV oscillations due to a variable refractive index?) might push it. Problem is, in our macroscopic case the Casimir force would probably be of the order of 10^-36. Very unlikely to have an effect.

[Edit: tried to be more rigorous with terminology]
« Last Edit: 06/24/2015 11:47 PM by hhexo »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 239
@rfmwguy - some images
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmcxbUxsM0lVTGVkemVTX1RaMlZJb001NHVaUDRvYUtjS0lIbjdIcUNkX0k&usp=sharing
anyone who has the link can view?

I had trouble finding resonance and basically failed. My excuse is that I ran out of daylight.
Driving at 2.45 GHz I got Q's of 145 at both 2.40189260E+009 and 2.64320588E+009 Hz.
Driving at the 2.40 GHz I got a Q of 100 and no other resonances
Driving at 2.64 GHz I got Q =  2000 at 2.40 GHz so I switched back to that number but the resonance went away.

So these images are from the cavity driven at 2.64 Ghz and so perhaps not meaningful. I did use the full 15 digits computed, not the 3 digits used here. I probably need to play some more and decrease the bandwidth of the search for resonance. Maybe I'll try that ... later.

These images are twice as dense as before. Ten images per cycle instead of five.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 12:47 AM by aero »
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
... em drive on a wheel at stationary tangential speed and stationary thrust (for stationary power) ...

You do understand that for a truly static EMDrive it will NOT move?


No, as others here I don't understand that. But I can admit that as a phenomenological requisite, so OK, let's say EMdrive begins thrusting after some initial nudge, and/or then requires freedom to be constantly accelerating : are they sufficient conditions of operation ?

Quote
Shawyer in his Force measurement document makes that very clear.

The EMDrive operates in 1 of 3 mode:

1) Do Nothing - no externally applied forces

2) Motor Mode - externally applied force moving the cavity big end toward small end.

3) Generator Mode - externally applied force trying to move the cavity small end toward big end.

The Energy for the Motor Mode generated Force to do Work over Distance comes from newly created microwave energy, powered by increased energy draw on the power supply.


Makes no sense to me. Let's stick to the phenomenology : what can be observed. The points raised seem to be irrelevant (about free energy arguments) when considering stationary mode of operation. For instance if we have a single piston thermal engine, when the piston is at top or bottom position it can't impart any torque to the crank shaft. When the piston is rising it is in what you would call "generator mode" : piston receive works from the crank shaft, not the other way around. But the alternation of energy receiving ups and energy giving downs makes for a stationary operation where the piston is, averaged over one or more periods, giving a net work flow to the crank shaft (of course in this case we know where the net energy the piston is giving comes from).

Sorry for the crash course on thermal engines, just trying to illustrate my point : connect an EM drive through a spring to a Ballast (a passive block of similar mass as the EM drive, a bit heavier), and let's consider this system free floating in vacuum, in a patch of space-time of negligible curvature (i.e. deep space). Small end of EM drive to the right.

EMdrive ---spring--- Ballast

Let's start the process at t=0 with the spring elongated (it wants to pull), with 0 relative velocity. The two parts will start to accelerate toward each others. Please be clear on this point : the way you understand the phenomenology described by Shawyer, I think you would say that the EMdrive is in the right conditions to engage in motor mode, since it is accelerated toward right by the force imparted by the spring. You don't see any objection that this force "rests" on the inertia of Ballast, do you ? So, at t=0, we power EMdrive and it starts to thrust (motor mode) : this thrust will help the mass of EMdrive to accelerate to the right at a faster pace than it would on the pull of the spring alone, agree ? At some point the spring crosses it's rest length and it starts to push instead of pulling. Switch off EMdrive power at this stage. An off EMdrive is just a chunk of passive mass, it respects the usual F=m*a dynamics, agree ? So it will continue on its acquired (relative) velocity toward the Ballast, but slowing down (relatively), while the Ballast will continue to move to the left (relatively) and also slow down. At some point, EMdrive and Ballast will find themselves in 0 relative velocity, and the spring is compressed. The spring then starts to accelerate EMdrive away from Ballast (and reciprocally). When crossing again the rest length position EMdrive and Ballast have acquired a relative velocity, going on this inertia they continue to move and start to stretch the spring again, until the restoring force of spring (now pulling) slow them down, and they reach 0 relative velocity, the spring being elongated. By tuning the parameters (stiffness, initial elongation...) relative to the performances (thrust) of the EMdrive it is not hard to see how this final position can be made to be identical (relatively) to the one at t=0. In other words we have a periodic (=> stationary) process.

Questions :
- do you say, according to Shawyer's ideas, this would work (should this system be built) ?
- do you agree that if this is working then the system overall has an average acceleration toward the right ?
- do you think that this average acceleration could be such that the average_thrust=average_acceleration/(mass_EMdrive+mass_Ballast) can be greater that averaged_power/c ?
- assuming the (periodic intermittent) power for the EMdrive is not from a battery on board but is beamed from afar, for how long do you think this process can occur (assuming you say it can occur) ?

Quote
Hook an EMDrive to a rotary wheel and feed it to a generator is not a source of free energy as the energy necessary to turn the generator under load comes from the EMDrives primary electrical power supply.

Maybe we can discuss that after you clarify the points above.

Haven't say yet : wish you best recovery.

Offline cej

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 4
It is possible that pushing it backwards offers resistance such that it appears more massive, where pushing it forward it appears less massive and tends to accelerate easier. But who's going to give a satellite a "push" in space?
Todd

If that is the case, then just combine it with a traditional rocket (e.g. a photon rocket or ion thruster); the drive should lower the cost of escaping a gravity well. QV fluctuations alone might even accelerate it in its preferred direction.

This also means that some of the experiments we've seen could be flawed by only testing it at ~9.8m/s2 versus momentum imparted by vibrations and atmosphere. Rather than look for the drive to start moving on a rotor, for example, we should start it at a constant velocity and see how/whether it resists various magnitudes of braking and/or acceleration. Then try it in the other direction to make sure it does not resist as much.

Frankly, between the proposal that the EM Drive somehow "knows" its velocity so that it cannot become a free-energy machine and this proposal that the EM Drive has to have an unspecified level of vibration amplitude and frequency to exert a force... well I better stop here. :)

The point is that it would not exert any force at all -- no more than a balloon does to rise in the air. In an atmosphere, it will be buoyant because it only resists change in momentum in one direction. Maybe even with QV fluctuations, although not as dramatically.

That said, a device with constant mass that can resist a change in momentum in one direction but not as much in the other, assuming that the resistance is greater than a photon rocket, sounds quite exotic. I'd love to hear someone familiar with the equations chime in as to whether this is remotely reasonable.

Offline Dortex

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • United States
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 12
No, I'm saying that the fault is because the big end is closed! If you had resonance on the cone without closing the big end, like rubbing your finger on the rim of a champagne glass, it would be a thruster. As it is now, it's just an energy storage device and possibly an inertial-damper.
Todd

Open big end? That sounds a surprising bit like a certain other propulsion device.

Offline arc

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • In port for a few weeks
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 32
« Last Edit: 06/26/2015 10:20 AM by arc »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
This sounds like the cavity is another version of the Woodward , Mach-Lorentz  effect
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1324
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/latest-woodward-mach-effect-propulsion.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/significant-resources-to-make-mach.html

Welcome.

___________

Shawyer has made a point that he doesn't want to use dielectric inserts because they reduce the thrust force and Yang has not ever used any dielectric inserts in her reported experiments.  So, those who claim the highest thrust forces use no dielectric insert whatsoever.

How does a microwave cavity with no dielectric insert "sound like ... another version of the Woodward , Mach-Lorentz  effect"  ???

Where is the Woodward-Mach effect coming from in such a cavity with no dielectric insert ???
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 01:49 AM by Rodal »

Offline smartcat

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 45
I am not a Shawyer fan but the Traveller defense could be not so crazy, look at the following paper:

Motion induced radiation from a vibrating cavity
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606029

We study the radiation emitted by a cavity moving in vacuum. We give a quantitative estimate of the photon production inside the cavity as well as of the photon flux radiated from the cavity. A resonance enhancement occurs not only when the cavity length is modulated but also for a global oscillation of the cavity. For a high finesse cavity the emitted radiation surpasses radiation from a single mirror by orders of magnitude.

Amazing!.. Is this IT then?!

Offline arc

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • In port for a few weeks
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 32

Shawyer has made a point that he doesn't want to use dielectric inserts because they reduce the thrust force and Yang has not ever used any dielectric inserts in her reported experiments.  So, those who claim the highest thrust forces use no dielectric insert whatsoever.

How does a microwave cavity with no dielectric insert "sound like ... another version of the Woodward , Mach-Lorentz  effect"  ???

Where is the Woodward-Mach effect coming from in such a cavity with no dielectric insert ???

No not the dielectrics, thats been covered before. Im refering to the "push-against-inertia"(generator mode) / "pull-when-assisted (motor)  concept.  If it realy operates with the ratchet like effect as stated then it is "similar" to Woodward's concept, just different in elementary design.  STAIF 2006 states# "What if you can make the mass of a capacitor fluctuating and act on it in a direction when it is heavier and in the opposite direction when it is lighter?".   Thats ratcheting, the statements made here about the cavity imply a similar fundamental mode.  As far as I know Woodward started with (or later on tested) capacitor based systems, looking for inertial responses.

Woodward:
StairSteps1.pdf , StairSteps2.pdf ,StairSteps3.pdf ,StairSteps4.pdf ,StairSteps5.pdf , StairSteps6.pdf .
AIAA:
AIAA2006.pdf
es.pdf
STAIF:
STAIF2006.pdf
Eagle Works:
EagleWorks Warp-Physics.pdf

As responsible researchers/investigators we need to examine all fundamental aspects for possible previously unnoticed relationships   

1- Shawyer; EM-Cavity theory
2- Woodward; EM-Mass fluctuation theory
3- Podkletnov;  His range of superconductor experiments & beam-force devices.
4- ESA; Superconduction Energetic Momentum & Flux Emissions
5- NASA; Eagle Works
6- White; Warp field metrics

There are known and demonstrated relationships between Supercondustors: High energy short duration discharges around 600Joules : 2*10-4s: and g-flux reactions, with significant momentum generation. But not using this em-cavity method.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2015 10:31 AM by arc »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
I am not a Shawyer fan but the Traveller defense could be not so crazy, look at the following paper:

Motion induced radiation from a vibrating cavity
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9606029

We study the radiation emitted by a cavity moving in vacuum. We give a quantitative estimate of the photon production inside the cavity as well as of the photon flux radiated from the cavity. A resonance enhancement occurs not only when the cavity length is modulated but also for a global oscillation of the cavity. For a high finesse cavity the emitted radiation surpasses radiation from a single mirror by orders of magnitude.
Amazing!.. Is this IT then?!

The paper is referring to the Dynamic Casimir effect, which has required a SQUID to produce the effect experimentally.  The copper walls of the EM Drive are not moving anywhere close to the required speed.

Here is a mechanical device with high Q that has mechanical vibration in the GHz range:  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.4917&rep=rep1&type=pdf

see how much smaller than the EM Drive's tested by researchers it is:

 20Ám-diameter = 14,000 times smaller diameter than the EM Drive
 2Ám-stem

stem offset from the center by only 1Ám
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 02:58 AM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
@rfmwguy - some images
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmcxbUxsM0lVTGVkemVTX1RaMlZJb001NHVaUDRvYUtjS0lIbjdIcUNkX0k&usp=sharing
anyone who has the link can view?

I had trouble finding resonance and basically failed. My excuse is that I ran out of daylight.
Driving at 2.45 GHz I got Q's of 145 at both 2.40189260E+009 and 2.64320588E+009 Hz.
Driving at the 2.40 GHz I got a Q of 100 and no other resonances
Driving at 2.64 GHz I got Q =  2000 at 2.40 GHz so I switched back to that number but the resonance went away.

So these images are from the cavity driven at 2.64 Ghz and so perhaps not meaningful. I did use the full 15 digits computed, not the 3 digits used here. I probably need to play some more and decrease the bandwidth of the search for resonance. Maybe I'll try that ... later.

These images are twice as dense as before. Ten images per cycle instead of five.

Thanks aero, well done. Unfortunately I am stuck at driving at 2.45 ghz and not 2.64...fortunately I have yet to cut the frustum, meaning I can tweak the small and big diameters from 6.25 and 11.01. Is it easy to plug in the slightly larger diameters for 2.45 ghz resonance?. Not wanting to load u down, but 2k Q is better than 100. 6.735 in small diameter and 11.864 in large diameter, length can stay the same. Just wanting to know if resonance occurs...no pics needed. Thanks in advance...last favor to ask as I am meepless ;)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
@rfmwguy - some images
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tfmcxbUxsM0lVTGVkemVTX1RaMlZJb001NHVaUDRvYUtjS0lIbjdIcUNkX0k&usp=sharing
anyone who has the link can view?

I had trouble finding resonance and basically failed. My excuse is that I ran out of daylight.
Driving at 2.45 GHz I got Q's of 145 at both 2.40189260E+009 and 2.64320588E+009 Hz.
Driving at the 2.40 GHz I got a Q of 100 and no other resonances
Driving at 2.64 GHz I got Q =  2000 at 2.40 GHz so I switched back to that number but the resonance went away.

So these images are from the cavity driven at 2.64 Ghz and so perhaps not meaningful. I did use the full 15 digits computed, not the 3 digits used here. I probably need to play some more and decrease the bandwidth of the search for resonance. Maybe I'll try that ... later.

These images are twice as dense as before. Ten images per cycle instead of five.

Thanks aero, well done. Unfortunately I am stuck at driving at 2.45 ghz and not 2.64...fortunately I have yet to cut the frustum, meaning I can tweak the small and big diameters from 6.25 and 11.01. Is it easy to plug in the slightly larger diameters for 2.45 ghz resonance?. Not wanting to load u down, but 2k Q is better than 100. 6.735 in small diameter and 11.864 in large diameter, length can stay the same. Just wanting to know if resonance occurs...no pics needed. Thanks in advance...last favor to ask as I am meepless ;)
A clarification on my previous suggestion: I had suggested to use MEEP to look at optimal antenna placement, but not to make a decision at what frequency there is resonance.  Not until the MEEP finite difference model has been verified vs. experimentally measured frequencies.

Is the MEEP model's finite difference grid fine enough and the MEEP eigensolution HarmInv well-conditioned enough to successfully predict the frequencies measured by NASA and other experimenters, using their geometrical dimensions?
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 02:51 AM by Rodal »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2744
  • 92129
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 239
Is the MEEP model's finite difference grid fine enough and the MEEP eigensolution HarmInv well-conditioned enough to successfully predict the frequencies measured by NASA and other experimenters, using their geometrical dimensions?

@ Rodal
Don't you mean, "The frequencies that COMSOL indicated that they should use? And the answer is that Harminv only comes close. And would you care to give an error bound on the measured (stated) dimensions of the cavities and the sensitivity of resonance to those measurements? I don't expect Harminv to reproduce the COMSOL numbers even if I do input the same numbers and precision used but we don't know what was used, do we. As for the experimental data, we have the same problems in spades. So if you could tell me what the resonance frequency sensitivities to small diameter and length are, that would be very helpful. Then we could estimate probable measurement errors and see if they are realistic. And if you can't tell me what the sensitivities are, then I can tell you, by using numerical data.

I doubt that Paul made a measurement error by as much as a tenth of an inch but unless he used a large micrometer to measure the height, he could have. And even with a micrometer, unless he was very very careful he could have introduced a slight angle to his measurement.

My  point is that you know as well as I that my computer is not up to running high resolution in 3D but Harminv does do much better in 3D than it ever did in 2D or cylindrical coordinates.

And just so you will know, over the last nearly 10 years, meep has been downloaded over 10,000 times. Some, if not most of the downloaders used meep, and many of them conducted and published peer reviewed research papers based on meep results. Meep is still widely used and does not have a reputation for frequency errors. The one thing those users may have had access to that I don't yet have is a powerful computer. Mine is a good home desk-top but at 5 years old, it is not a supercomputer. Go ahead and knock my computer all  you want but please lay off of meep.

And to answer your question as asked, "Yes, Meep absolutely does have the capability to measure resonance frequencies as well or better than other tools. I just do not have the needed tools installed. Harminv, not so much."

To install MPB and recent meep upgrades, I need to compile, link and load from C++ source code. That code is available but I am not a computer systems administrator or a professional C++ programmer and I do not want to stop producing some helpful results to produce nothing for the time it will take me to become knowledgeable enough to do that. Then take the time to learn to use the newly installed and upgraded program features. And then only to have my results flawed my my own modelling errors with many more potential sources of error. My system does what it does and if someone doesn't like it they can choose not to consider it.

And to the other 1,499,999 readers of this thread, I apologize for my rant.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline kml

I was able to confirm that it is RFI affecting the scale causing the apparent changes in force.   I used a rubber duck antenna suspended above the scale and was able to reproduce the ~30mg change with 30mw of net power, which seems like a plausible leakage value from the adjustable end which is not well sealed.  That end is closest to the scale in the "Up" orientation that produced the largest force changes. 
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 05:22 AM by kml »

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
It is possible that pushing it backwards offers resistance such that it appears more massive, where pushing it forward it appears less massive and tends to accelerate easier. But who's going to give a satellite a "push" in space?
Todd

If that is the case, then just combine it with a traditional rocket (e.g. a photon rocket or ion thruster); the drive should lower the cost of escaping a gravity well. QV fluctuations alone might even accelerate it in its preferred direction.

This also means that some of the experiments we've seen could be flawed by only testing it at ~9.8m/s2 versus momentum imparted by vibrations and atmosphere. Rather than look for the drive to start moving on a rotor, for example, we should start it at a constant velocity and see how/whether it resists various magnitudes of braking and/or acceleration. Then try it in the other direction to make sure it does not resist as much.

Frankly, between the proposal that the EM Drive somehow "knows" its velocity so that it cannot become a free-energy machine and this proposal that the EM Drive has to have an unspecified level of vibration amplitude and frequency to exert a force... well I better stop here. :)

The point is that it would not exert any force at all -- no more than a balloon does to rise in the air. In an atmosphere, it will be buoyant because it only resists change in momentum in one direction. Maybe even with QV fluctuations, although not as dramatically.

That said, a device with constant mass that can resist a change in momentum in one direction but not as much in the other, assuming that the resistance is greater than a photon rocket, sounds quite exotic. I'd love to hear someone familiar with the equations chime in as to whether this is remotely reasonable.

Not remotely, extremley possible. It's simply the Doppler Shift.

Say you have a TE01x standing wave mode inside, as shown on one of @Rodal's images. These waves have a specific energy and wavelength "at that specific location" in the frustum. When the frustum is pushed backwards, from the small end toward the big end, The accelerated reference frame causes a time delay in the momentum transfer to the standing wave. The wave shifts toward the small end and must increase in frequency. This means it gains mass, from the force exerted on it rather than kinetic energy. It resists the acceleration.

In the other direction, when the frustum is pushed forward, the standing wave shifts towards the big end and loses energy in the process, losing mass and making it lighter. It should continue to lose mass and move toward the big end until it gets there, and then it gives up 2X that momentum when it is reflected and slows the frustum to a stop, until it can charge up again.

So TheTraveler's explanation that it is a "ratchet" makes sense. It's just not a very good thruster. It would make a great Inertial Damper for a star ship though. :)

As for your idea, it would not make getting into orbit any easier because you still need to carry the mass of the stored energy needed to power it. With losses and inefficiency, it's just extra weight.
Todd

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
Is the MEEP model's finite difference grid fine enough and the MEEP eigensolution HarmInv well-conditioned enough to successfully predict the frequencies measured by NASA and other experimenters, using their geometrical dimensions?

@ Rodal
Don't you mean, "The frequencies that COMSOL indicated that they should use? And the answer is that Harminv only comes close.

And to the other 1,499,999 readers of this thread, I apologize for my rant.

You're allowed to rant, I said so.
Shell

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
I was able to confirm that it is RFI affecting the scale causing the apparent changes in force.   I used a rubber duck antenna suspended above the scale and was able to reproduce the ~30mg change with 30mw of net power, which seems like a plausible leakage value from the adjustable end which is not well sealed.  That end is closest to the scale in the "Up" orientation that produced the largest force changes.
Are you going to try a screen between the two? I found some copper screen from the hardware very cheap that's used on screen doors that works quite well.
Shell

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752

Shawyer has made a point that he doesn't want to use dielectric inserts because they reduce the thrust force and Yang has not ever used any dielectric inserts in her reported experiments.  So, those who claim the highest thrust forces use no dielectric insert whatsoever.

How does a microwave cavity with no dielectric insert "sound like ... another version of the Woodward , Mach-Lorentz  effect"  ???

Where is the Woodward-Mach effect coming from in such a cavity with no dielectric insert ???

No not the dielectrics, thats been covered before. Im refering to the "push-against-inertia"(generator mode) / "pull-when-assisted (motor)  concept.  If it realy operates with the ratchet like effect as stated then it is "similar" to Woodward's concept, just different in elementary design.  STAIF 2006 doc says "What if you can make the mass of a capacitor fluctuating and act on it in a direction when it is heavier and in the opposite direction when it is lighter?"
As far as I know Woodward started with (or later on created a test rig) based on capacitors, looking for inertial responses.

LOL! @arc you nailed it buddy! That's exactly what it does!!!! If you put the EM Drive on a shaker table in space, the system as a whole would accelerate, provided you allow sufficient time for it to recharge after each half-cycle.

When you pull it forward, it's lighter. When you push it backwards, it's heavier. An external sin(wt) oscillation will have a NET DC offset. LOL! That's hilarious!

Oxonian cart?

Amazing!
Todd

"I could tell how fast we were moving by the vibration on the bulkheads..." or something like that -- Scotty
« Last Edit: 06/25/2015 05:44 AM by WarpTech »

Tags: