Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1799692 times)

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1293
  • Likes Given: 1744
@Warptech.
I read your reply to @wallofwolfstreet, so am taking that into account here.
...

But what happened to the relativistic kinetic energy term (g-1)*E0?
It is buried in there somewhere. What you should have, relativistically, is
Eout = (g-1)*E0
But you don't.

What I have in equation (13) is the correct expression for the kinetic energy. What I show in equation 8 is the total energy at time t. All of the equations are time dependent. (Unfortunately, in my haste, only equation (12) explicitly shows this.) What you are forgetting is that in any form of rocket with on-board power, some portion of the rest mass is converted into thrust. I think the terminology is "wet mass" and "dry mass". What is left over after accelerating the vehicle to some velocity v, and then decelerating back to v = 0, is not the SAME rest mass that was there at t=0. Only the "dry mass" remains. So that portion that is used, the "wet mass" must be subtracted from the initial rest mass. Neglecting this fact will lead to an over-unity condition.

Quote
3. Eqn 9 is OK, given eqn 8.

4. Eqn 10 makes no sense to me. You throw in force F and it immediately disappears in equivalent symbols, which you have nowhere before defined. The only reference to F before this is in your illustration of my proof of over-unity, which you write out for illustrative purposes only, and will presumably intend to refute later. But here you are using F in eqn 10 as if we knew what it was algebraically. We don't; we only know what it is supposed not to be!
So I cannot follow your derivation for eqn 10.

I'll stop writing for now and read on.

Point taken, we all agree that the verbiage leading up to equations (9) and (10) needs some explanation, such as; this is the instantaneous velocity of the rocket as viewed by a stationary observer at rest in the original inertial reference frame and is NOT the exhaust velocity of the rocket, in the frame of the rocket. Understood.
Todd

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Congrats New Horizons team, very impressed...the best media question I heard was "when are we going back?" The answer was interesting, there are designs being worked on.

IMHO, the key for planetary science and space exploration success is becoming clear. It is not more sensitive  instrumentation, it is not lower cost hardware...it is faster propulsion. This is your challenge scientific community...to shrink the fabric of space and time with modern propulsion research.

To the propulsion industry...think outside the box. Your equations have shown us that propellants will never get us to where we want to go...faster and farther. Perhaps in this forum, one of us may help show you the way.

In case you are wondering, Space is big. Here is a "to scale" map of the solar system with the moon diameter as the scale length of one pixel. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html No wonder it takes so much time to get anywhere.
Yep, which it never ceases to amaze me that we are trying to illuminate the solar system with a match. Goddard and Von Braun had their day, time to take the next step. Sounds crazy, but if I were a billionaire that really wanted to leave a scientific legacy, here's what I would do:

Offer a $250M prize to a winner of a race. The race would be:

From LEO to 2AU...shortest time to get there wins.

Let them use gravity assist, chemical propellants, ion engines, floobie dust (hat-tip deltamass), its a simple time and speed calculation. Limit total mass to lets say a few hundred kg just to make it interesting.

Once qualified, Mr Billionaire pays for standardized ride to LEO and a standardized telemetry pack to be built in. Time begins at release. Releases can be sequential. Window of release: 2 years.

Now, there's something outside the box for all those X prize types out there. Call it the Galactic 500 (only because I'm from Indy). ;)

Offline ElizabethGreene

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Nashville, Tennessee
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 3
In case you are wondering, Space is big. Here is a "to scale" map of the solar system with the moon diameter as the scale length of one pixel. http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html No wonder it takes so much time to get anywhere.

The Hitchhiker's Guide says it quite well:
“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”

Offline DaCunha

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 14
the fact that the magnetic field in the truncated cone walls is finite while the electric field is zero made me think about a work I read a long time ago .

The polarization and magnetization and the Lagrange function of the virtual electron sea was calculated out of the Hamilton Density (energy density) of the virtual electron sea inside an external electric and magnetic field by Heisenberg and Euler in 1934.

Due to the dependence of the Lagrange function of the Lorentz invariants E˛-B˛ and (EB)˛ the analysis is valid for all field polarizations.

The assumption of the calculation was that the wavelength of the external fields is long compared to the Compton wavelength of the electron. (Which is perfectly fulfilled for microwaves)

The difference of the density matrices of the occupied and unoccupied states was calculated and according to Dirac's procedure of removing singular energy densities a corresponding density matrix S was calculated and subtracted.

The dirac equation was solved for a potential wall of 2mc˛.
The eigenfunctions of the equation were found and used to calculate the energy density.

The total energy density inside the field is composed of the classical maxwellian part E˛+B˛ and the shown quantumelectrodynamical part.

The electron sea concept is old but the shown calculations lead to correct results:

For example:  In 2002 photon splitting in magnetic fields was measured and correctly described by this energy density and it's corresponding lagrange function.


The important thing now is: In the last equation the first row is the contribution from the singularity density matrix S and has to be subtracted. Some of the remaining terms that stem from the vacuum (= electron sea) polarization, contain the magnetic field strength and have a negative sign. They are thus lowering the energy density of the electron sea relative to free space. I was asking myself if there is a possibilty of lowering of the energy density in the region of standing waves where there is a finite and large magnetic field but a weak or zero electric field.

However, the negative terms just form a tiny contribution compared to the maxwellian contribution 1/8pi (E˛+B˛) in free space. But inside the truncated cone geometry this could no longer be true.

If we suppose that these negative terms could become dominant under certain conditions then inside the EMdrive an effect similar to the Casimir effect could occur. The negative terms inside the Hamilton density could lower the energy density relative to the fieldless space outside the resonator.

Because the larger part of the cone has a larger volume the spacetime curvature could cause more repulsion at that end and less at the smaller end.

I just wanted to say that there are indeed negative terms inside the more exact expression of the electron sea Hamiltonian and maybe we can find more theorists to investigate this in case of the truncated cone geometry

If you are further interested, read: W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Theorie des Positrons Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936).

(It is in german...)
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 05:56 PM by DaCunha »

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 237
I have just installed MEEP and NSF-1701.ctl is sitting here on my hard drive.
How can I help?

Good! Run it and see how the data compares to posted data. In particular, generate some csv files, then "diff" them with the "identical" data on Google drive. If you haven't changed any settings, the data should be there. If you change anything at all, chances are your data will be different. If that is the case post a copy of your file to me and I'll run it as is then post a some csv files back to you.

I think that is probably the most straight forward way to check installations. Of course your computer word length may be different so that might not work either.

aero

I ran "meep NSF-1701.ctl" and got the following files:

      Name                        Size                                          MD5
--------------------------    ------------     ---------------------------------------------------------
eps-000000000.h5    127.3M         7028e98b42305c0fc5bd285c70766e17
ex.h5                             1.7G              f515221aee0ff2b82a32c69ee4c4a54b
ey.h5                             1.7G              069ec826d6803e2e67f0619617c641b7
ez-000000003.h5      127.3M         4865721e49192853eb998efe0fa76b0f
ez-000000021.h5      127.3M         8675ee3158b64285aa1fb4e36833217b
ez.h5                             1.7G             920f598802f7eee417465c0f2703872c
hx.h5                             1.7G             c4c14a37208eed92f8dff0c1aef7762c
hy.h5                             1.7G             01ff935ad90d58e0d31f93c84244ee95
hz.h5                             1.7G             f9ee7c2e08c895bd57ac7b7cbc200913


Should I use h5totxt to convert each file, individually?
What is the expected output? The Google Drive has a lot of .csv files, I'm not sure which ones I'm supposed to independently replicate and compare to.

If you have HDFview installed, look at the images of the eps file, then the two ez-000000003.h5 and ez-000000021.h5 just to verify that the antenna is there and in the correct location near the small end of the cavity. If you don't have or don't know how to use HDFview then just use h5topng to generate images of those files.

Make one or more csv files of any of the other .h5 files. Just pick one, ex.h5 is the first. Make a csv file of the final image, image 13, then we'll help you to find it on Google drive. It will be in the NSF-1701 folder under csv files but I need to know which one to look for.

h5topng asks me to specify a slice.
Which one should I use?
Anyway, if this is just to verify our files is the same, you could do a simple "md5sum" on your .h5 files and confirm the hash values. If they match, our files are the same.

A check sum won't do it. I've already tried that route with another meep user. Our machines are different and there are machine dependencies embedded in the files.

Here:
h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 -o ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/Allfiles.csv/zCopper-exy.csv ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/ex.h5

Change the folder and file names to the ones you are using. 

In the above
-t 13 ------------------the 13th time slice
-0 ---------------------standing alone, move the coordinate reference to the center 0,0,0 point
-y -0 -----------------confusing, -y 0 would be the same thing, the y slice showing x,z through the y=0 point
-o ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/Allfiles.csv/zCopper-exy.csv ---------- output file name
./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/ex.h5 ----------------------------------------------- input file name

Oh, and just my thought on the matter, you need to check, but our computers are different. My h5 files are 1.9 GHz while yours are 1.7 GHz. Maybe a different word size? So if diff shows that the csv files are different, don't be to surprised. Just load both csv files into sheets 1 and 2 of your spreadsheet program then set sheet 3 to sheet 1 minus sheet 2. Since when you get to here, diff has already shown the files to be different, sheet 3 should be filled with a lot of very small numbers, on the order of word truncation error. If it is the same data.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1293
  • Likes Given: 1744
@Warptech.

1. CONCLUSIONS
There is no difference in the thrust-to-force ratios, when mass is accelerated by a conventional means or by
radiation pressure from a photon rocket, the solar wind or a “space-drive” with an internal potential energy
gradient. The equation for the thrust-to-power ratio is the same and it is not constant at any speed, as
illustrated in the derivation of equation (10).

This is wrong. It is a well-understood identity that k = 1/c for a photon rocket. Last I checked, c was a local invariant.

I will show this is the special case of a "flashlight" type photon rocket. There are 2 other types of photon rockets where this relationship does not hold. Also, the instantaneous output power of the vehicle is m*v*a = Pout, depends on the instantaneous velocity of the vehicle, not the exhaust velocity, c.

I think there is some confusion on everyone's part here, regarding where 1/k is specified and to be measured. Is it specified in the frame of the moving vehicle? Or is it specified in the frame of an inertial observer at rest in the frame of origin? You and @wall, seem to swap one for the other as if they were the same, without regard to the frame of reference from which it is measured. That is incorrect.

Quote
2. I think that gravity plays no role here. We can take our drive out to an almost-field-free region of spacetime, and we can assume that the spacetime is asymptotically flat (the CMB seems to think so too). Lo and behold, we get over-unity. Therefore I look upon all references to gravity as pure obfuscation.

Do you also think that gravitational time dilation and length contraction is somehow "different" or "more real" that time dilation and length contraction caused by accelerating to a higher velocity potential? In other words, do you believe Einstein's equivalence principle is correct or not?

Quote
3. The same goes for using the gamma factor. The Newtonian calculation of the power over-unity velocity vP=1/k can happily refer to the severely sub-relativistic regime. For instance, there is talk here of a k-value of about 0.001 N/W. That corresponds to 1000 m/s. There is absolutely no need to use SR calculations in this velocity regime. To do so is pure obfuscation.

My equation (9) show that if you choose to ignore Pin*t, as being negligible compared to m0*c^2, then the instantaneous velocity at all times, is v=0. If you ignore this, it leads directly to your over-unity machine because you are not subtracting off the part of the energy you are using to accelerate. Therefore, the energy at time t > 0, is greater than it would've been, had you properly subtracted the power consumption.

I'm presenting the actual equation to calculate the velocity based on the power consumed. You are handwaving and saying this is irrelevant, then claim over-unity. Who is the one trying to obfuscate here?

Quote
4. At the end of the day, you are back to stating that spacetime is a road and EmDrive the tyre which rides along it. That's because you're back to stating that F = Pin/v.  Or, as @wallofwolfstreet likes to describe it, you claim to be able to construct an absolute velocity measuring device. As we've both said, you can't do that.    Einstein's ghost will bite you in the neck as you sleep if you suggest it again. And again, I have to mention the delicious irony of you breaking a fundamental tenet of relativity, when you're the only one trying to use SR to wriggle out of the clearly predicted fact of over-unity.

Wrong, you both misunderstand Special Relativity and ignore the effects of acceleration, as used in General Relativity. I can measure the difference between two identical vehicles on two identical clocks, synchronized at t=0. One clock + vehicle is left behind and one is traveling along an acceleration curve through space-time. I can measure the acceleration of the vehicle over time using the accelerometer from my friends Mini Cooper. :) Therefore, I can measure the acceleration which acted upon those clocks before they were compared a second time. I can also read the fuel gauge on the battery and see that it was discharged, and weigh both vehicles and see that the one that traveled has lost rest-mass.

When the clocks are compared after the journey, they read off different amounts of elapsed time. Even if it is just a billionth of a nanosecond difference, this comparison shows that Lorentz symmetry was broken by the acceleration. Just as it is in a gravitational field. The effect on the matter accelerated is "physical", it is not simply ignored by handwaving and the symmetry of a Lorentz Transformation, when in fact, the world-lines are not symmetrical.
Todd

Offline leomillert

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 12
I have just installed MEEP and NSF-1701.ctl is sitting here on my hard drive.
How can I help?

Good! Run it and see how the data compares to posted data. In particular, generate some csv files, then "diff" them with the "identical" data on Google drive. If you haven't changed any settings, the data should be there. If you change anything at all, chances are your data will be different. If that is the case post a copy of your file to me and I'll run it as is then post a some csv files back to you.

I think that is probably the most straight forward way to check installations. Of course your computer word length may be different so that might not work either.

aero

I ran "meep NSF-1701.ctl" and got the following files:

      Name                        Size                                          MD5
--------------------------    ------------     ---------------------------------------------------------
eps-000000000.h5    127.3M         7028e98b42305c0fc5bd285c70766e17
ex.h5                             1.7G              f515221aee0ff2b82a32c69ee4c4a54b
ey.h5                             1.7G              069ec826d6803e2e67f0619617c641b7
ez-000000003.h5      127.3M         4865721e49192853eb998efe0fa76b0f
ez-000000021.h5      127.3M         8675ee3158b64285aa1fb4e36833217b
ez.h5                             1.7G             920f598802f7eee417465c0f2703872c
hx.h5                             1.7G             c4c14a37208eed92f8dff0c1aef7762c
hy.h5                             1.7G             01ff935ad90d58e0d31f93c84244ee95
hz.h5                             1.7G             f9ee7c2e08c895bd57ac7b7cbc200913


Should I use h5totxt to convert each file, individually?
What is the expected output? The Google Drive has a lot of .csv files, I'm not sure which ones I'm supposed to independently replicate and compare to.

If you have HDFview installed, look at the images of the eps file, then the two ez-000000003.h5 and ez-000000021.h5 just to verify that the antenna is there and in the correct location near the small end of the cavity. If you don't have or don't know how to use HDFview then just use h5topng to generate images of those files.

Make one or more csv files of any of the other .h5 files. Just pick one, ex.h5 is the first. Make a csv file of the final image, image 13, then we'll help you to find it on Google drive. It will be in the NSF-1701 folder under csv files but I need to know which one to look for.

h5topng asks me to specify a slice.
Which one should I use?
Anyway, if this is just to verify our files is the same, you could do a simple "md5sum" on your .h5 files and confirm the hash values. If they match, our files are the same.

A check sum won't do it. I've already tried that route with another meep user. Our machines are different and there are machine dependencies embedded in the files.

Here:
h5totxt -t 13 -0 -y -0 -o ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/Allfiles.csv/zCopper-exy.csv ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/ex.h5

Change the folder and file names to the ones you are using. 

In the above
-t 13 ------------------the 13th time slice
-0 ---------------------standing alone, move the coordinate reference to the center 0,0,0 point
-y -0 -----------------confusing, -y 0 would be the same thing, the y slice showing x,z through the y=0 point
-o ./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/Allfiles.csv/zCopper-exy.csv ---------- output file name
./NSF-1701CopperEzAnt-z-out/ex.h5 ----------------------------------------------- input file name

Oh, and just my thought on the matter, you need to check, but our computers are different. My h5 files are 1.9 GHz while yours are 1.7 GHz. Maybe a different word size? So if diff shows that the csv files are different, don't be to surprised. Just load both csv files into sheets 1 and 2 of your spreadsheet program then set sheet 3 to sheet 1 minus sheet 2. Since when you get to here, diff has already shown the files to be different, sheet 3 should be filled with a lot of very small numbers, on the order of word truncation error. If it is the same data.

Your zCopper-exy.csv and mine appear to be far too different, from a first look at it.
I'm not sure why, since we used the same model (NSF-1701.ctl).
I'm sending my csv file as an attachment so you can check it too.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 05:12 PM by leomillert »

Offline CraigPichach

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Calgary Alberta
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 4
MWVP thanks for posting this!!!! Is there a slide out there with a Bottom Radius 431.8mm and height 711.2mm?!?!? Looking at this slide you can see that the 431.8mm x 711.2mm is probably not designed for the 2.4GHz frequency... and you can see that the TM010 design is the one that achieves resonance at the lowest frequency - I think March is going TM010 to allow a commercial L-band magnetron to achieve resonance.

Anyone else think it is safe to assume that the 17" OD long and 28" length is designed for an L-Band unit (I'd guess 915MHz - 957.833MHz). How accurate do we think these COMSOL calculated frequencies are? Anyone care to guess if you can be +/-50MHz and still see some thrust at 100kW?

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 237
Your zCopper-exy.csv and mine appear to be far too different, from a first look at it.
I'm not sure why, since we used the same model (NSF-1701.ctl).
I'm sending my csv file as an attachment so you can check it too.

OK, that could be any one of a number of things. I am re-running the file NSF-1701 (copy).txt (changed back to .ctl) exactly as I uploaded it and will create the csv file using the command I posted above. Then compare the two using my spread sheet as I outlined above. That way we should be comparing exactly the same data excepting machine dependencies. It will take some time for the meep run to complete.

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2956
  • Likes Given: 2588
Busy morning and thought I'd give you all a update on the build. Thank goodness for gofundme I couldn't be doing this and I'd be hanging this baby off  my bathroom shower curtain rod or throwing into my hot tub. http://www.gofundme.com/yy7yz3k

I just ordered hollow carbon fiber rods 12.7 mm x 1.8 m, weight 354 grams or about 12 oz for the test Fulcrum to measure thrust.

I've ordered a Raspberry Pi 2 Model B (1GB) Ultimate Starter Kit-- Includes over 40 components--Raspberry Pi 2 Model B--200 Page User Guide--Edimax EW-7811Un 150Mbps for data logging.

Added a iPazzPort Raspberry Pi Mini Wireless Handheld Remote Control Keyboard with Multi Touch Touchpad Work for Android and Google Smart TV XBMC KP-810-21B for remote control and added a 32gb San disk for a great price.

I've got 2 sheets of perforated copper on order 3x5 ft ~.020 thick for making the test dummy Plus a sheet of O2 free copper conductive .040 perforated copper for the real test.

I've got price quotes coming from L3 for a complete power supply with a .01-50% duty cycle along with a 800w magnetron water cooled.

If that doesn't work out and proves to much than I'll use for first test a standard 800 w OTS magnetron and power supply.

What else? Oh ya, a http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19f582dea5

I've got wires and silver solder and cables on order Shielded where needed. Oh and a couple of inexpensive lasers and mirrors and graph paper, a tub and foam for the anti-vibration component of the test.

I have a android pad w/wifi and blue tooth that I'll use as well.

Now starts the process of putting it all together get
Here we go!!! I'm so jazzed to see this project go ahead.

Note to self, don't talk on the phone while typing.. sheesh.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 05:43 PM by SeeShells »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5835
  • USA
  • Liked: 5915
  • Likes Given: 5253
Don't have the software to do the integration on the images but I did the large end.

I hope you have good solder joints people! The maximum stress seems to ride the seem of the large end. Hence, the use of bolts, not solder to hold it together. Hmmm...

It makes sense though, that when the mode energy reaches the big end, it has already expanded. So after that, most of the reflections must be concentrated around the perimeter of the big end. That's why I want to see a simulation of it turned off. I want to see how far back up the frustum the wave goes after it is reflected from the big end, and for how long.
Todd

It is a location NEAR the big end, but NOT at the big end.  I still have to plot the stresses at the big and at the small ends

In order to do that, don't you need csv files at the big and small ends? If so, tell me where they are. That is, what rows of the xz or xy csv files that you have correspond to the big and small ends? Then I can cut x slices at those rows and make the right csv files.

aero, I figured out exactly where the bases are located in the RFMWGUY latest model that has

245 FD nodes in the longitudinal x direction
261 FD nodes in the transverse y and z directions

BIG BASE is at x = 16   (row 16 of 245 rows)

SMALL BASE is at x = 231  (row 231 of 245 rows)   


(x corresponds to the row number in the matrix)

So, I would need TS013 to TS13 for at x = 16 and at x = 231

It is very important to get the exact location, as x=15 and x = 232 have zero fields.

If you decide to locate the cross sections based on the middle node located at:

x = (245-1)/2 + 1
   = 123

then

BIG BASE      x = 16  corresponds to     123 - 107 

SMALL BASE  x = 231 corresponds to    123 + 108

In other words, the bases are NOT equidistant from the middle node.  The big base is closer by one node to the middle node than the small base
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 10:20 PM by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Building and thinking...of the 4 known fundamental forces, only gravity is assymetrical, meaning it is only attractive and cannot be repulsive. We have a problem here...CoE. with no cosmic balance, no conservation, the universe collapses...rapidly...yet it expands. This is a known fact.

There is antigravity, we just can't wrap our heads around it imho. EM is symmetrical, CoE maintained. I've read countless theories on this over the years, none seems to 100% unlock the mystery of an expanding universe. 

Consider this, nature loves symmetry and we are studying an asymmetric, EM charged object trying to maintain CoE. Perhaps this opens a link to a force we fail to grasp.  To maintain its own CoE, the frustum must borrow from something else. That something else is where I've been stuck.

Quantum vacuum, dark energy, etc,. are theoretical terms to explain antigravity, or perhaps a repulsive condition of gravity itself, which is my bet. Warning...ask me for an equation and you'll receive none...yet. ;)

Online tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 577
I agree. All existing evidence shows that the universe consistently violates CoM and CoE, both at the start (the Big Bang being a big one) and even now, with the apparent acceleration of universal expansion. That's not "fringe physics", just what the evidence shows.

I wouldn't be surprised if it could do it again, in fact or in appearance.

So far we haven't seen any confirmed non-negligible example usable at our human scale. But that only needs an example in order to change.

It may never happen as well, because nature doesn't have to follow our expectations. We should just keep our eyes and ears open for seeing and hearing what the universe has to show&tell, whatever it is.

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2144
Building and thinking...of the 4 known fundamental forces, only gravity is assymetrical, meaning it is only attractive and cannot be repulsive. We have a problem here...CoE. with no cosmic balance, no conservation, the universe collapses...rapidly...yet it expands. This is a known fact.

If, after the time of inflation, everything shrinks faster and faster inclusive all forces, but condensed matter(higher energy density, shrinks faster) and free space(lower energy density, shrinks slower) with different velocities, for any internal observer it seems to be a faster and faster expansion. Would be explain redshift for example ;) Everything is relative...  ;D
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 07:07 PM by X_RaY »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Liked: 2681
  • Likes Given: 1124
Building and thinking...of the 4 known fundamental forces, only gravity is assymetrical, meaning it is only attractive and cannot be repulsive. We have a problem here...CoE. with no cosmic balance, no conservation, the universe collapses...rapidly...yet it expands. This is a known fact.

If everything shrinks faster and faster inclusive all forces, but condensed matter(higher energy density, shrinks faster) and free space(lower energy density, shrinks slower) with different velocities, for an internal observer it seems to be a faster and faster expansion. Would be explain redshift for example ;) Everything is relative...  ;D

Good point, although if we are shrinking on our own reference frame, there should be microscopic black holes appearing around us. maybe there are and that explains what happened to our Jimmy Hoffa decades ago ;)





Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2144
Building and thinking...of the 4 known fundamental forces, only gravity is assymetrical, meaning it is only attractive and cannot be repulsive. We have a problem here...CoE. with no cosmic balance, no conservation, the universe collapses...rapidly...yet it expands. This is a known fact.

If everything shrinks faster and faster inclusive all forces, but condensed matter(higher energy density, shrinks faster) and free space(lower energy density, shrinks slower) with different velocities, for an internal observer it seems to be a faster and faster expansion. Would be explain redshift for example ;) Everything is relative...  ;D

Good point, although if we are shrinking on our own reference frame, there should be microscopic black holes appearing around us. maybe there are and that explains what happened to our Jimmy Hoffa decades ago ;)
Matter inside black holes would shrink faster than the regions with lower density in this picture.
Some times i think a have got a black hole under my table, every time something is falling down it is away   ??? ;)

Offline Blaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Spring Hill, KS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 122
Building and thinking...of the 4 known fundamental forces, only gravity is assymetrical, meaning it is only attractive and cannot be repulsive. We have a problem here...CoE. with no cosmic balance, no conservation, the universe collapses...rapidly...yet it expands. This is a known fact.

If everything shrinks faster and faster inclusive all forces, but condensed matter(higher energy density, shrinks faster) and free space(lower energy density, shrinks slower) with different velocities, for an internal observer it seems to be a faster and faster expansion. Would be explain redshift for example ;) Everything is relative...  ;D

Good point, although if we are shrinking on our own reference frame, there should be microscopic black holes appearing around us. maybe there are and that explains what happened to our Jimmy Hoffa decades ago ;)
Matter inside black holes would shrink faster than the regions with lower density in this picture.
Some times i think a have got a black hole under my table, every time something is falling down it is away   ??? ;)

I believe Lenard Susskin said that we are pretty much living in a black hole on one of Hawking's Into the Universe.  I forgert which one.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 07:23 PM by Blaine »
Weird Science!

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
@Warptech
A couple more notes:

1. You say that you will address the incorrect assumption that the input energy term Pin*t is much smaller than the rest energy term m0*c2. Problem is that you never mention it again!!
Furthermore, you apparently ignore the post I made showing that for eminently reasonable physical values, the input energy term is about 14 orders down on the rest energy term!! Why have you conveniently blocked this out? You are quite capable of calculating it yourself.  Are you therefore prepared to admit that the input energy term can be neglected in comparison with the rest energy term?
That being the case, all your equations collapse into tautology.

2. That peculiar little model about potential energy difference plays absolutely no role in your derivation. You write it down once and that's all. Like referring to gravity, and like using the gamma factor, this is yet another red herring that serves only to obfuscate.

I'm afraid your paper doesn't achieve what it intended. It serves only to demonstrate that you are engaging in woolly thinking, have no handle on orders of magnitude, cannot resist the temptation to use SR and GR when wholly inappropriate, and believe that something called "absolute velocity" exists and can be sensed by the (purported) thrust-producing mechanism - this last utterly in contradiction with relativity itself.
@Warptech.
At least do us the favour of replying to the first point here.  You have done a lot of replying, but have studiously skirted this core point, it seems to me.
The fact that your equations produce nonsense when you make this approximation is really your problem, not anyone else's. They are, after all, yours.


Re. your query "How is 'k' measured?"
At these severely sub-relativistic speeds (even the smallest experimental k-value predicts breakeven at less than 1%c) we don't need SR or GR. Pin is measured with a power meter onboard. Acceleration may be measured onboard with an accelerometer, or by an external inertial observer who logs deltaV over deltaT. There is no black magic to be squeezed from this. It is thoroughly mundane. Force F is directly calculable from acceleration (F = m a) because m is invariant to first order (and with 14 orders down on your SR twiddle, arguably to even higher order). Thus we can calculate 'k'.

I'm with @wallofwolfstreet here: plug in some numbers and amaze us with your theory.

« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 07:40 PM by deltaMass »

Offline rfcavity

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Busy morning and thought I'd give you all a update on the build. Thank goodness for gofundme I couldn't be doing this and I'd be hanging this baby off  my bathroom shower curtain rod or throwing into my hot tub. http://www.gofundme.com/yy7yz3k

I just ordered hollow carbon fiber rods 12.7 mm x 1.8 m, weight 354 grams or about 12 oz for the test Fulcrum to measure thrust.

I've ordered a Raspberry Pi 2 Model B (1GB) Ultimate Starter Kit-- Includes over 40 components--Raspberry Pi 2 Model B--200 Page User Guide--Edimax EW-7811Un 150Mbps for data logging.

Added a iPazzPort Raspberry Pi Mini Wireless Handheld Remote Control Keyboard with Multi Touch Touchpad Work for Android and Google Smart TV XBMC KP-810-21B for remote control and added a 32gb San disk for a great price.

I've got 2 sheets of perforated copper on order 3x5 ft ~.020 thick for making the test dummy Plus a sheet of O2 free copper conductive .040 perforated copper for the real test.

I've got price quotes coming from L3 for a complete power supply with a .01-50% duty cycle along with a 800w magnetron water cooled.

If that doesn't work out and proves to much than I'll use for first test a standard 800 w OTS magnetron and power supply.

What else? Oh ya, a http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19f582dea5

I've got wires and silver solder and cables on order Shielded where needed. Oh and a couple of inexpensive lasers and mirrors and graph paper, a tub and foam for the anti-vibration component of the test.

I have a android pad w/wifi and blue tooth that I'll use as well.

Now starts the process of putting it all together get
Here we go!!! I'm so jazzed to see this project go ahead.

Note to self, don't talk on the phone while typing.. sheesh.

I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

Offline X_RaY

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Germany
  • Liked: 993
  • Likes Given: 2144
Busy morning and thought I'd give you all a update on the build. Thank goodness for gofundme I couldn't be doing this and I'd be hanging this baby off  my bathroom shower curtain rod or throwing into my hot tub. http://www.gofundme.com/yy7yz3k

I just ordered hollow carbon fiber rods 12.7 mm x 1.8 m, weight 354 grams or about 12 oz for the test Fulcrum to measure thrust.

I've ordered a Raspberry Pi 2 Model B (1GB) Ultimate Starter Kit-- Includes over 40 components--Raspberry Pi 2 Model B--200 Page User Guide--Edimax EW-7811Un 150Mbps for data logging.

Added a iPazzPort Raspberry Pi Mini Wireless Handheld Remote Control Keyboard with Multi Touch Touchpad Work for Android and Google Smart TV XBMC KP-810-21B for remote control and added a 32gb San disk for a great price.

I've got 2 sheets of perforated copper on order 3x5 ft ~.020 thick for making the test dummy Plus a sheet of O2 free copper conductive .040 perforated copper for the real test.

I've got price quotes coming from L3 for a complete power supply with a .01-50% duty cycle along with a 800w magnetron water cooled.

If that doesn't work out and proves to much than I'll use for first test a standard 800 w OTS magnetron and power supply.

What else? Oh ya, a http://www.ebay.com/itm/138M-4-4G-SMA-signal-source-generator-simple-spectrum-analyzer-Tracking-source-/111493176997?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19f582dea5

I've got wires and silver solder and cables on order Shielded where needed. Oh and a couple of inexpensive lasers and mirrors and graph paper, a tub and foam for the anti-vibration component of the test.

I have a android pad w/wifi and blue tooth that I'll use as well.

Now starts the process of putting it all together get
Here we go!!! I'm so jazzed to see this project go ahead.

Note to self, don't talk on the phone while typing.. sheesh.

I don't understand why perforated copper sheets instead of solid. At that frequency it will decrease the effective conductivity and ruin the Q of any cavity. Additionally you lose structural rigidity and will be suspect to thermal effects changing the shape of the cavity (having a variable Q).

Think the only reasons are one can look into the cavity(possible plasma strokes) and the thermal heated gas can evacuated it selves by convection... Q can only be less than in a solid case. But i also think these are interesting experiments, we will see whats happens and the "bandwidth" of experiments can't be high enough :)
« Last Edit: 07/14/2015 08:10 PM by X_RaY »

Tags: