Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1804027 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
I'm back and I'm glad you all didn't verbally slash and gash your way to figuring out the Q of a frustum. :D Or the way the EMDrive does what it does while violating CoE CoM or not. The EMDrive is going to do what it wants.
...
The verbal slashing and gashing is an unfortunate outcome of Internet Forum discussions where people (actually men: I don't see women doing this here :) ) interface using monickers and not face to face.  It would not happen if people were to have the same conversation in a cafe. :) 

However, something good came out of this discussion: it is apparent that there are no IEEE or international organization standards of how to measure and report loaded Q's.  Nobody has yet brought up any such standard.

Authors have reported Q's sometimes without clearly reporting how they determined such Q's.  So, it is quite probable that people are using different ways to measure and report Q values, and this is a source of miscommunication.  It would be like people with different languages using the same word to describe something but with different meanings.
Q is such a tough one and at least it came out there is no real standard. This is why I didn't post my Q, it's so open for debate and in the real world testing this device, it is, what it will be. (hopefully >2)
Shell
Shell, you know shat "Specsmanship" is, right? Think of Q that way...people can define it differently to show as high a number as they want. "The bigger the Q, the better it is" type attitude. As Doc said, who knows if Q is even a relavent number...it contains no measurement, only a ratio. It is relative to common industrial standards, unfortunately not across all disciplines.
My Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...
...
Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
...
Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source.  Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of  3.6*109 Joules.  WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.

I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.
Todd
I would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.

Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.

ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied.

Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.
Todd
Well Todd, it is news to me that a moving battery is aware of its "absolute velocity". This is totally new physics  8)   Perhaps you could consider starting a company which used a battery as an absolute speed indicator?  It would be fabulous for space missions.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity -  by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!

WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?

If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.
Todd

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
...
...
Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
...
Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source.  Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of  3.6*109 Joules.  WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.

I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.
Todd
I would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.

Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.

ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied.

Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.
Todd
Well Todd, it is news to me that a moving battery is aware of its "absolute velocity". This is totally new physics  8)   Perhaps you could consider starting a company which used a battery as an absolute speed indicator?  It would be fabulous for space missions.

Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something. 8)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...
...
Out of all the things involving the EMdrive, the COE paradox is one of the least fantasy of them all.
...
Let's take a ridiculously powerful battery and run it for a long time, in the context of an on-board EmDrive power source.  Say 1 MW for 1 hour. This produces a total output energy of  3.6*109 Joules.  WarpTech's correction demands we express this as an equivalent mass, which we do by dividing by c2, a huge number of magnitude roughly 1017. What we get is an equivalent mass of 3.6*10-8 Kg. When we compare this smidgeon with a typical system mass of probably north of a metric ton, we can see that it is so far down in the noise as to be completely insignificant. It cannot possibly make any substantive difference to the power breakeven velocity = 1/k.

I rest my case... Force goes to zero at a limiting velocity, even in the Newtonian case.
Todd
I would advise against resting it. You have made the same mistake as you did some time ago. You cannot write "v = a t" for this nonlinear dynamic.

Nevertheless, I'll flog through a full treatment because, despite the logical error, it's an interesting observation. More to follow, I hope.

ETA: You are implicitly assuming that 'k' is variable. If that's the case, then it's a function of velocity, and we're back to a preferred rest frame. If you want to go that route, simply write F = Pin/v by pretending that the EmDrive "knows" its velocity somehow. Now you have Ein=Eout and Pin=Pout at all times, and all energy conservation considerations are satisfied.

Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Ah, but you are forgetting that the vehicle's battery does know. The vehicle started at rest with a total rest energy of m0*c^2, and it ended at it's final velocity, totally depleted of battery power with a rest energy of (m0*c^2 - Ein). It has less rest-energy. So it knows it has been spent. Besides, this is Newtonian mechanics, relativity does not apply. Newton used a preferred rest frame. I can add a few factors of gamma and a Lorentz transformation if you want to make that argument, but I'd prefer to put this damn thing to bed.
Todd
Well Todd, it is news to me that a moving battery is aware of its "absolute velocity". This is totally new physics  8)   Perhaps you could consider starting a company which used a battery as an absolute speed indicator?  It would be fabulous for space missions.

Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something. 8)
Two batteries in two inertial frames with nonzero relative velocity should have identical physics. If you contradict that, then you contradict relativity. Which you are doing.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
My Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.
The problem here, in reporting Q's (as made apparent by Yang, who clearly discussed this in one of her papers, as first brought up to the surface by zen-in (hat-tip) is not so much in how a scientific calculation of Q should be done, but it is in the arbitrary selection of how to establish the zero dB reference plane for an S11 plot, (how to measure the S11 VNA return loss).  Yang was obtaining a Q of 1500 (hat-tip to zen-in) if one calculates her Q according to 3db  half-power bandwidth (which is in itself an arbitrary value for a bandwidth) but it was a wildly different reported Q's on her tables in her same paper because as she discussed in her paper she established the zero dB reference plane on a very different basis as done by NASA (from what I recall).
I see. Well, that is far more egregious compared to what I referenced.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity -  by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!

WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?

If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.
Todd
I'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Blessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 09:47 PM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Blessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).
Are you saying to me in subtext that you will brook no criticism of Todd's theory because it demotivates him?

I sincerely hope that you are not, for that is not how we do science.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Blessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).
Are you saying to me in subtext that you will brook no criticism of Todd's theory because it demotivates him?

I sincerely hope that you are not, for that is not how we do science.
No, I am certainly all in for scientific criticism, just saying that building is much more difficult than tearing down.   Tearing down is very important, not just in science but in all engineering, as an unsafe bridge, building or vehicle deserves tearing down in order not to hurt occupants. 

Praising the builder does not mean being against polite and factual scientific criticism.  What has been described as "verbal slashing and gashing" is not done in scientific journals to criticize theories: just stating the facts makes the argument stronger.  Verbal slashing and gashing makes the scientific argument weaker.
There is no verbal slashing and gashing in a mathematical statement proving something wrong. 

Math and factual information speak louder than bombastic words in Science and Engineering.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 10:12 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Blessed are those who persevere, against major odds, in building mathematical edifices and understanding of what is behind this EM Drive, and in performing experiments (whether explaining it as an artifact or as something useful for space propulsion), for theirs alone is the kingdom of heavens (or Earth -if the right explanation is an artifact-).
Are you saying to me in subtext that you will brook no criticism of Todd's theory because it demotivates him?

I sincerely hope that you are not, for that is not how we do science.
Think Doc is saying that critics are reactive and theorists/builders are proactive...thats my story and I'm stickin' to it...;^)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
OK. Because you have no idea of the tremendous restraint I am exercising :-X

Offline mwvp

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Coincidence? I think Not!
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 30
Someone has the first 3 resonance frequencys of cavity with flat ends, and the frequency of the microwave source?
Thanks.

Perhaps this may help?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1333246#msg1333246
 Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2
Reply #775 on: 02/18/2015 12:32 PM
see "Frustrum modes overview 2A.pdf" attachment

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
...
Well, if the battery is dead and you try to start the engine and go faster from there, you'll be S.O.L. So it must know something. 8)
Two batteries in two inertial frames with nonzero relative velocity should have identical physics. If you contradict that, then you contradict relativity. Which you are doing.

As I said, relativity does not apply in this Newtonian case. On one hand you require a Newtonian analysis and on the other hand, you want it not to violate relativity. Make up your mind! Which way do you want it?

Also, as I've said many times, in GR the gravitational potential energy matters. Which means that m0*c^2 vs (m0*c^2 - Ein) makes a difference. The one that was accelerated has less rest-energy and more kinetic energy. It has undergone length contraction and time dilation. So it is physically different than an identical vehicle and battery that did not undergo acceleration. It's not new physics. It is the same  thing that happens when it changes altitude in a gravitational field. The "scale" changes. The Twin Paradox is not a paradox. It is supposed to present an example that the two frames are NOT identical, that the physics is NOT symmetrical when in one case there was acceleration and in the other there was not.
Todd

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 1752
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity -  by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!

WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?

If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.
Todd
I'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.
No, it proves your theory is wrong. That Ein =/= Eout. My formula for Eout is perfectly correct. It is only when I try to equate it to Ein that it fails, because it can never happen. There is no "break even" in the relativistic case.
Todd
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 10:19 PM by WarpTech »

Online SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2589
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell

Offline tleach

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Berthoud, CO
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 100
Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?

Are we back to Mach's Conjecture?  "Inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
T. Thor Leach

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell
I'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"

However, those wishing to rescue conservation of energy (they already lost the battle over conservation of momentum) propose some relationship between motive force F and "velocity v". Now this works fine and dandy for a tyre attached to a car travelling along a road on Earth, because we can ignore the back-reaction from an orders of magnitude argument. One just writes F = Pin/v and everything works out fine.

Which begs your question - how is this supposed to work in deep space? Why would the motive force magically decrease as you went faster? You can make the ridiculousness of this proposal even more ridiculous and consider two EmDrives stopping and starting acceleration. It's only sensible to think like that when there's something to grab hold of - a "road" of some sort. Relativity says that there is no road, that there is no preferred inertial frame of reference, that the physics in any two inertial frames is the same, irrespective of their relative velocity. Therefore, when these people try to say that EmDrive1 in Frame1 is thrusting harder than EmDrive2 in Frame2, simply because they belong to different inertial frames, they are directly contradicting physics as we know it.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 11:09 PM by deltaMass »

Offline WarpTech

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


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell

The scale of rulers and clocks is relative to the gravitational potential with which they are in equilibrium. The scale is variable in a gravitational field. So in that sense, a vehicle starting on Earth has a scale that is different than say a vehicle starting near the event horizon of a black hole. In that regard, the "preferred frame" is the one from which the vehicle originated. It is not absolute, it is relative, but it is different from some other location at a different gravitational potential. So, there is a preferred frame but it's not absolute, it's relative.
Todd

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
My Bleaney & Bleaney lists several different formulae for calculating the Q of even the lowly lossy tuned circuit. It's probably not worth listing them here. But they are all very similar when calculated out.
The problem here, in reporting Q's (as made apparent by Yang, who clearly discussed this in one of her papers, as first brought up to the surface by zen-in (hat-tip) is not so much in how a scientific calculation of Q should be done, but it is in the arbitrary selection of how to establish the zero dB reference plane for an S11 plot, (how to measure the S11 VNA return loss).  Yang was obtaining a Q of 1500 (hat-tip to zen-in) if one calculates her Q according to 3db  half-power bandwidth (which is in itself an arbitrary value for a bandwidth) but the reported Q's on her tables in her same paper were wildly higher because as she discussed in her paper she established the zero dB reference plane on a very different basis as done by NASA (from what I recall), resulting in huge magnification of reported Q.

Yes, that is an accurate statement of the facts.   Q can't be measured precisely because it relies on a measurement of power.   Several years ago I had the great privlege of attending a course in RF measurement techniques taught by Stephen F. Adam.   http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4915012   Mr Adam worked in Hewlett Packard's microwave division for many years.  One day he used flow graphs to show how power measurement of RF energy is never more than 10% accurate.  As others have stated, Q measurements of more than 4 figures are wrong and out of the range of expected measurement error.
For many years the standard for Q measurement was manufactured by Boonton Electronics.  (260-A Q Meter shown below).  These instruments produced accurate (+/- 10% or more) and reproduceable measurements up to UHF frequencies.  However if you also had an HP Q meter the measurement would be different.  Not by a lot but always different.  Some component companies still refer their measurements to the 260-A.

Tags: